David Cairns: When the hon. Gentleman started to talk about endangered species in Scotland, I though for a moment that he was talking about the Scottish Tory party. If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) wants to debate that, he is very welcome to join us at Scotland Office questions.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point—there is often tension between the global environmental gains to be made from renewable energy sources such as wind farms, and local environmental considerations, and it is important that they are balanced. That is why the European habitats directive must be taken into consideration before planning consent is given, and I am sure that he welcomes that EU regulation, as he welcomes all EU regulations. However, that highlights the need to take these decisions on a case-by-casebasis based on the evidence, and not to adopt astrategy of calling for a moratorium on all wind-farm developments in Scotland . [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members may say that no one is saying that, but the Scottish Tory party is saying it.

Douglas Alexander: Mr. Speaker, forgive my concernfor the crocodile tears expressed about youth unemployment and the minimum wage. We considered the matter very carefully in government after 1997. Of course, the Conservative party then claimed that 1 million jobs would be lost as a consequence of what they judged would be a dangerous and reckless policy. In fact, the only people who ended up losing their jobs because of the manner in which we introduced the minimum wages were the Conservative MPs who opposed it. The serious point behind the measures that we took and the fact that we introduced a different rate for young workers was our profound concern to avoid significant youth unemployment, which is still too common in continental Europe. The virtual eradication of long-term youth unemployment has been one of the Government's most significant achievements. I believe that our measured and sensible approach to the introduction of the minimum wage has played a significant role in that success.

Douglas Alexander: Yes, just a few weeks ago I met with the STUC general council and we discussed at length the interests of Scottish manufacturing. Immediately preceding that meeting, I had held discussions with Scottish Engineering, and it again placed on recordits determination to continue to support modern manufacturing strength for Scotland.

Angela Smith: I do not think that the hon. Lady recognised the pun that she made, but it was well appreciated on the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend Baroness Andrews is looking at this matter, which will be discussed, and I can assure the hon. Lady that her comments will be drawn to my hon. Friend's attention.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that response. She realises that it is extremely important for her Department to deal with investigations into planning regulations quickly. In the past, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sat on such cases for a great deal of time, and in the case of the livestock market in Shrewsbury, the cost to local council tax payers is£2 million in lost revenue. Will she do everything possible to speed up the adjudication on the proposed transfer of Darwin house to our council because it wishes to build a Darwin museum in Shrewsbury?

Yvette Cooper: I agree that we need to do more to address the affordability pressures that are faced, especially by first-time buyers throughout the country. As a result, we need to build more homes. More than 200,000 new households are being formed each year, largely as a result of more people living alone, but we are building only about 160,000 new homes a year, which is unsustainable. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to reform the planning policy guidance on housing. We have already published a draft for consultation, and we will publish a revised version later in the year to support more housing, including not only more shared-ownership and affordable housing, but more market housing.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what representations she has had from the major supermarket chains—or, indeed, the Treasury—in respect of the possible changes to and relaxation of PPG6? Does she not agree that the changes made by the previous Government, including the introduction of the sequential test, have been an important factor in assisting the regeneration of our town and city centres, and that if the guidance were to be relaxed to allow more out-of-town shopping development, it could have a serious impact on our city centres?

Joan Walley: If she will meet Stoke-on-Trent city council to discussthe provisions under section 45(8) of the Local Government Act 2000 relating to questions which may be asked in a referendum.

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Lady agree that affordability concerns not only the purchase price but running the house afterwards? How many of the £60,000 houses meet the target of a 40 per cent. reduction in energy use and a40 per cent. reduction in water use; and how much reduction is there overall if, as I believe, none of them meets that target?

Andrew MacKay: During the Commons debate in the summer, the Minister was sympathetic when many of us said that our constituents believe that brownfield sites should be ex-commercial sites, not the gardensof houses and bungalows, which when built on as so-called brownfield sites completely change the nature of residential areas. In light of her sympathetic comments, what progress has she made in redefining brownfield sites?

Phyllis Starkey: Development on brownfield sites is often more difficult because of the former uses of those sites. May I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent development occurring in my constituency at Warburton on the old railway engineering works, where the historic buildings are being conserved. A difficult site with only one access has been developed and 300 houses have been provided at a high environmental standard. Will my hon. Friend ensure that those lessons are spread?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He has asked me a great many questions, which I shall do my best to deal with as briefly as I can.
	The proposals made by the United States and Japan are under consideration as we speak: the Security Council has just begun its meeting. For our part, we are content to see any and all of the measures presented so far on the table. We think it extremely wise to have a full range of measures for consideration in the Security Council, so that people can assess them and decide whether they wish to adopt all or some of them, but also so that it is clear what range of measures is potentially available to the Security Council on this or indeed any future occasion.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me what would happen if North Korea ignored an expressed decision by the Security Council. That is exactly why I think it right to look at the full range of measures. It is not at all clear yet what decision the Security Council will make. As the right hon. Gentleman may have heard—it has been commented on in the news media—the Security Council meeting yesterday was extremely brief. That was partly because some members did not have instructions from their domestic Governments, but it is thought that there is no question about the opposition to what North Korea is doing. However, what the detail of people's willingness to take action in the immediate future will be is not yet clear.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised, quite correctly, the issue of proliferation. That is exactly why the international community as a whole is so alarmed about this development. It is not just the issue of North Korea itself; it is the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it has shown a propensity to distribute weapons in the past.
	We are not in a position to answer some of the detailed questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about arming missiles and so forth, not least because not enough is yet known about the nature and weight, for example, of a potential device. However, he is right to stress both the need for unity in the international community—which we will try to sustain—and the need to look again at the issue of the non-proliferation treaty in this light.
	Conversations that I have had with the South Korean Foreign Minister indicate that that country is consulting widely and in great depth about the exact course of action that it will pursue. I cannot, therefore, answer the right hon. Gentleman's specific question yet, but I am sure that it is one of the issues that South Korea will be considering, given the breadth of the process that it is undertaking.

Gavin Strang: I recognise that this is one of those occasions when the whole House will applaud the actions that my right hon. Friend has taken and will strongly support the efforts being made in the Security Council to secure effective additional chapter VII sanctions, involving,as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, the authority to inspect all cargo going into and out of North Korea. Does she agree that China, as the main superpower, has a real responsibility to support sanctions for the benefits of its own people and the wider world and to make sure that they are effective?

Edward Davey: Will the Foreign Secretary send the strongest possible message of support to the South Korean Government and President Roh? I have the honour of representing the largest Korean community in the UK, and my constituents are desperate to know that the British Government will stand firm with the South Korean Government. Will the right hon. Lady tell President Roh that the UK Government—unlike some people in Washington—in no way consider his sunshine policy of engagement with North Korea to have been at fault.

Margaret Beckett: Perhaps this is not the right dayto dwell on the issue of regime change, but the Government do what we can in North Korea, through relatively small-scale programmes of assistance and support. If the hon. Gentleman's visit was recent, he may know that the programmes run there by our Department for International Development have been stopped or scaled down because of the difficulty of making sure that they can be monitored properly, given the restrictions on freedom faced by opposition groups, non-governmental organisations and so on. Those restrictions make matters extremely difficult in North Korea, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to try to build good contacts with people of good will where we can.

Des Browne: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	I should like to start by expressing my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the brave servicemen who have lost their lives since I last spoke to the House on 24 July. Five soldiers have died in operations in Iraq, all of them killed in action. Twenty seven personnel from all three services have died in Afghanistan, with 11 killed in action and 16 lost in other incidents, including those killed in the RAF Nimrod crash on 2 September. Others have been wounded, and our thoughts should be with them also.
	I turn first to Iraq. The House will be aware of the escalation of sectarian violence in recent months, particularly in and around Baghdad. The combined Iraqi and American Baghdad security plan, about which I was briefed in Baghdad in August just before it began, is a major initiative aimed at improving security for all the communities in the city. The security element is closely followed by co-ordinated projects to improve basic services, backed by more than $400 million of funding. In those areas that have been cleared of terrorists and sectarian gangs so far—with 1,700 weapons seized—citizens are reporting better security and are starting to see improvements in their daily lives. That said, however, the overall level of violence across the city, including sectarian killings, remains unacceptable—there was further evidence of that today—but the plan is still in its early stages and there is impressive commitment from American, coalition, and Iraqi forces.
	In the UK's area of operation in south-east Iraq, the biggest challenge lies in Basra city. Two weeks ago, Iraqi and UK forces began a large-scale operation moving through the city sector by sector, strengthening security and improving basic services. One important element of the operation is a renewed effort to improve the capacity of the Iraqi police and to address infiltration by militias. The operation also includes clean-up projects, agriculture projects and projects to improve basic services, including bringing clean drinking water to a part of the city that has never hadit before.
	Elsewhere in the south-east, in September Dhi Qar became the second province to be handed over to the Iraqi authorities, following al-Muthanna in July. We should congratulate the Iraqis on that achievement, and of course our international partners.
	In terms of future planning for the UK in Iraq, I can confirm that the force package for the next routine roulement in November, in which 19 Light Brigade takes over from 20 Armoured Brigade, is essentially what I outlined in my announcement to the House on 18 July. I also draw the House's attention to my written statement on 11 September, which confirmed a temporary deployment of 360 troops, including specialists such as engineers to help deliver the Basra projects I described earlier, and elements of the theatre reserve battalion, to provide support during the roulement period. Excluding the temporary deployment, this will leave our force level in Iraq at approximately 7,100.
	We should be in no doubt that this is a decisive period in the future of Iraq. There is much debate, here in Britain, in America and of course in Iraq, about the best way forward, but all agree that military means alone will not be decisive. This is especially true now, when it is clear that sectarianism and the struggle for power have emerged as a major threat to Iraq's security. What is required above all is a political solution. That must include a genuine effort at national reconciliation, drawing all Iraq's communities into a political process and away from violence. Prime Minister Maliki and his Government are trying to deliver that. We and our coalition partners must do all we can to support them and to strengthen their resolve—but so, too, must the international community as a whole and Iraq's near neighbours in particular.
	Let me turn to Afghanistan. The achievements and losses of our forces in Helmand province rightly have been the focus of our attention in the last two months. The work our forces are doing there is difficult, dangerous and exhausting. I salute them, particularly the men and women of 16 Air Assault Brigade, who are coming home, having been relieved by 3 Commando. I shall be visiting them tomorrow to thank them in person, but today on behalf of the whole House I should like formally to record our recognition of the bravery, professionalism and sacrifice of that brigade and all those from across the three services who supported them during their tour—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".]
	On this, the fifth anniversary of our intervention in Afghanistan, we should reflect on the progress our efforts have brought about: 2,000 schools built;5 million children in school, a third of them girls; more than 70 new hospitals and clinics; and 4.5 million refugees returning home. This is not a failing mission.
	NATO, in the shape of ISAF—the international security assistance force—under the leadership of General Richards, now has responsibility for the whole of Afghanistan, but as we know, the summer has seen fierce fighting and as I made clear in a speech last month, the persistence of the Taliban was greater than expected. Such is the nature of operations: the enemy always has a vote—and we have adapted. But let me repeat: the force package we deployed, which we have strengthened further over the summer, was designed to deal with violent resistance, and in every encounter with the Taliban our forces have defeated them. Moreover, by attacking us directly, the Taliban have taken heavy losses, both in northern Helmand and against the Canadians in Kandahar. We have sent a clear message that we will not be beaten in combat—a message not lost on the local population. That has strengthened the position of local leaders, some of whom are now pursuing peaceful negotiations with our commands and with the Afghan Government.
	In Afghanistan, we have now reached a key point in the campaign. On Sunday, I spoke to General Richards and he described the situation as a window of opportunity. If we can build upon the blow we have delivered to the Taliban and if we can quickly deliver real, concrete changes to the lives of ordinary Afghans through development and reconstruction, we can begin to generate the lasting support that the Government need. So we are moving forward, but I have consistently made clear the challenges that we still face.
	The assumption of complete military command for Afghanistan is a significant achievement for NATO, but it is also a significant test. There are still shortfalls in the planned force structure. Caveats on the use of some forces remain. I have been in frequent, often daily, discussions with the Secretary-General and fellow Defence Ministers to reinforce the message that, as an alliance, we must live up to our commitment to Afghanistan, sharing the burden and, as important, sharing the risks. I ensured that this subject was top of the agenda at the NATO summit in Slovenia two weeks ago, and I will continue to press for urgent action.
	We have made some progress. Some caveats are lifting—the Poles have confirmed they will provide a battalion, and the Canadians plan to put further troops into the south. Importantly, General Richards judges that he has the forces to maintain the relatively stable security situation that now exists, but I will continue to push for his requirements to be met in full, as a matter of urgency.
	In Helmand, the UK task force also faces challenges. The battles that we have fought in the north of the province have brought us to the relative stability that we have seen in recent weeks. Taliban activity is down and engagement with local leaders is growing, butwe must capitalise quickly with progress on reconstruction. We are rebalancing our forces, taking advantage of the steady improvement in the Afghan army and police to concentrate our forces on the central area surrounding the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. That should increase the scope for other Government Departments to act in safety, and it should also increase the confidence of local enterprises and international NGOs to begin the reconstruction that is at the core of our strategy.
	Back in the UK, the main challenge for me, for my Department and for the joint headquarters and the chiefs is to give our troops the resources that they need to get the job done. That is a relentless task, but we are rising to it. We have now almost completely deployed the reinforcements that I described to the House on10 July, with the last elements due in Afghanistan in the next few weeks. That includes two more Chinook helicopters and more flying hours for helicopters across the fleet; more capacity to train the Afghan national army; engineers to take forward development; and more infantry.
	On 24 July, I announced a new package for protected vehicles for both Afghanistan and Iraq, including 100 new Mastiff and 100 additional Vector vehicles, funded by new money from the Treasury. We continue to invest heavily in force protection, including countermeasures to protect vehicles against attack, defensive aids for aircraft and personal body armour. I believe that we have shown that we can be responsive to the requests of commanders, and we will continue to be responsive.
	Of course, support for our troops is not just about numbers of people and equipment; it is also about pay, conditions, welfare and medical care. In all those areas, we are constantly reviewing what more is needed, and for some weeks now, I have specifically been looking at pay levels for forces on operations. Our forces are some of the best paid in the world—only Canada pays more across the ranks—but forces from other countries do not pay tax when on operations, and this has led some to demand that we do the same for our people. I think we can do better.
	I am pleased to announce today that we intend to introduce a new tax-free, flat-rate operational bonus, which, for a six-month tour, would amount to £2,240. For an average private or lance-corporal, that is equivalent to the amount of tax that they would pay during a six-month tour. It means that half our people on operations will be better off than under a tax exemption—increasingly so for the lower paid. The most junior will be more than £500 better off after a six-month tour than if we simply exempted them from tax. As important, everyone on operations will be equally better off than they are now—by just under £100 per week, free of tax. I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for making more than £60 million of new money available so that we can fund this new bonus without taking any existing defence funding away from front-line needs.
	This is a complex area. I have been looking at these questions for weeks, but I can assure the House that the troops who have been fighting in Afghanistan over the summer will not lose out as a result. The payment will be backdated to 1 April 2006, as an adjustment to pay arrangements in the current financial year. Full details of eligibility will be made public shortly, but I can confirm that, besides Afghanistan, the payment will apply to our forces in Iraq and in the Balkans.
	Finally, let me deal with the issue of medical care for those injured on operations. First, I want to challenge the notion that the current system is in any way inferior to what went before. In particular, the relentless attack on the work of the outstanding medical staff—military and civilian—at Selly Oak hospital is both unfair and misplaced. I have been there twice in recent months. It is one of the highest-performing and most successful hospital trusts in the NHS and provides major specialist centres for trauma, burns, plastic surgery and neuroscience.
	Our primary concern is to give our injured people the best medical care available. That is to be found inside the NHS. While some have been calling in public for a return to military hospitals, we have been quietly getting on with the job of establishing a military managed ward at Selly Oak in partnership with the NHS. I can confirm that this will be operational before the end of the year.
	I have been open about the nature of the challenges that we face in our operational theatres. I do not seek to hide from the House the difficulties we face in overcoming them, but I am convinced our strategy remains the right one. In Afghanistan, we have to tackle the south and the east if we are to secure what has already been achieved in the rest of the country. We have to make the comprehensive approach work, with all Government Departments acting together to achieve our objectives. We have to get NATO to live up to its commitments. In Iraq, we have to support the Iraqi Government and their army and police in taking responsibility for their own security and in holding the line against sectarian violence. We will do all these things—we cannot afford not to.
	I have spoken many times about the debt we owe the men and women who serve in our armed forces and who carry out this hard and dangerous work on our behalf. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to them again today.

Liam Fox: Let me begin by associating myself and my colleagues with the Secretary of State's condolences to the families and friends of all those who have given their lives for our security. Let me pay tribute to all those servicemen and women who have performed so well under such difficult circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	As I have said several times in the House, the Opposition fully support the Government's aims in Afghanistan: to prevent the recurrence of a failed state and the re-emergence of al-Qaeda and the effects this would have on Britain's security. It is more true now than ever that NATO's reputation in on the line. Our collective security requires a properly collective response—a response that has been notably lacking from some quarters of our allies.
	It is, however, the duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for the means of achieving these objectives. From the outset of the deployment to Afghanistan questions have been raised about whether too much planning was done on the basis of the most optimistic potential outcome. Public opinion was prepared largely for a mission that was about peacekeeping not war fighting. From the very beginning, questions were asked about the level of manpower and equipment being deployed given the difficulties that might be faced. In the event, the realists, rather than the optimists, have been proved right. Resistance from the Taliban has been fierce and the deployment under-strength. As a result, not only were a further 900 troops sent by the Government in July, but NATO commanders on the ground still believe that they are undermanned. I certainly do not agree with the assertion made by the Secretary of State for Defence in July that:
	"neither the Taliban, nor the range of illegally armed groups, currently pose a threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan".
	These major strategic questions require a great deal of analysis, which I am sure that the House will want to give them in due course. Today, I have a number of specific questions for the Secretary of State, relating to our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include the safety of our troops, the need for more equipment, the calculation of casualties, the treatment of those injured, the inadequacy of the inquest system and the lack of reconstruction.
	Let me begin with the question of body armour. On 18 September, the Secretary of State said in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) that Osprey, the body armour that provides extra protection for the neck and shoulders, would replace ECBA, which provides only minimal chest protection. How many sets of Osprey armour have already been provided for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and what proportion of our troops can receive it when necessary? The correct answer should be 100 per cent.
	Let me next turn to helicopters. The Prime Minister said recently that our commanders can have "all that they want." They immediately responded by saying that they wanted more helicopters. The worry is that the Government may promise what they are unable to provide. How many helicopters do we have that could be used in Afghanistan, but are not being used? How many helicopters do we have that are not fit for purpose? For example, the Ministry of Defence's own figures suggest that only 41 per cent. of the Lynx and Gazelle fleets are fit for purpose. What requests have been made to our NATO allies for extra helicopters? Which nations currently have the capacity to provide appropriate helicopters, but have not done so? How many military helicopters have we earmarked for sale to foreign countries and why did the Government cut the battlefield helicopter budget from £4.5 billion to £3.2 billion as recently as 2004? On available vehicles, how many of the Mastiff and Vector vehicles announced in the July package have now been delivered in theatre?
	On the issue of casualty numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, we want to see greater transparency. At the moment, there are discrepancies between the way in which UK and US casualty figures are compiled. In particular, only casualties who are admitted for in-patient treatment or casivaced are included in our official figures. What we are not told is the proportion of our troops who are injured sufficiently to make them unfit for duty, but who do not require hospitalisation. The US provides figures on those who are injured, but return to duty within 72 hours. Can we please have the same?
	Of those who are injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is essential that they are treated by those with thebest medical skills, but in the most appropriate environment. No one has attacked the excellent work of the medical and nursing staff and to suggest that is deplorable, but to have injured servicemen and women and reservists treated in wards alongside civilian patients is just not acceptable. Part of the healing process is about coming to terms with the nature of their injuries and that is best done among their comrades. We want an assurance today from the Secretary of State that everything possible will be done to ensure that those who return to the UK will be treated in exclusively military wards. The British public will expect nothing less.
	Back in May, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the unacceptable level of outstanding inquests for those killed in action. The backlog results in families being unable to achieve closure of the tragic events that have occurred. At the time, in response to the request, the Government made more resources available to the Oxfordshire coroner, yet the situation remains completely unacceptable. The Coroners Act 1988 gives the coroner the ability to delegate the responsibility of carrying out an inquest to another county. Why is this not being used? Do Ministers have the power to instruct the coroner to make that happen? If not, and if a ministerial order is required to make that possible, the Government will have the full co-operation of the Conservative party to make that possible.
	Let me welcome the announcement of extra money for those on the front line. They deserve no less. I am delighted that the Government have responded so quickly to the Leader of the Opposition's initiative. If we can achieve this much in opposition, how much more could we achieve in government? Will the payment have a minimum qualifying period; will it apply to all three services; will it be repeated for every deployment; and what impact will it have on tax credits for those at the lower end of the pay scale?
	Finally, let me ask about reconstruction. In respect of Iraq, the Secretary of State is right to concentrate on the need for a political solution and the establishment of an independent judicial system. However, can he remind the House today who is responsible for the training and development of the police service in Iraq, and why it is so far behind schedule?
	In Afghanistan, we are about to enter a crucial phase. We have seen fierce fighting and an enormous commitment to defeat the Taliban. But without substantial reconstruction on the ground, and after five years of a foreign military presence, those in the south of Afghanistan might rightly question why they have seen no improvements to their infrastructure. Two-hundred schools in Kandahar, and 165 in Helmand, are closed for security reasons, and DFID has withdrawn its only representative in Helmand.
	Let me put the following question to the Secretary of State: what sort of security environment do the NGOs expect there to be before genuine reconstruction begins? Do they expect a zero-risk environment? If they do, we will never have the basic requirements of what is needed to win the hearts and minds of the peasant farmers in south Afghanistan. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to impress upon the Secretary of State for International Development the need to get the NGOs operating? If we do not do so, the sacrifices of our men and women in Afghanistan could be in vain, and that would be a completely unacceptable outcome for the House and the country.

Des Browne: If I were to answer all the questions the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I suspect that I would incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker. However, I will endeavour to deal with the principal issues raised, and, to the extent that I do not answer them, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place the answers in the Library. That will allow other Members to ask questions today.
	At the outset, let me repeat something that I have said to the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion: I value the support that he and the majority of those who sit on the Conservative Benches give for the operations in Afghanistan and for their objectives. It is important to those whom we charge with the responsibility of carrying out those very dangerous operations that they know that they have that support.
	Let me deal with the body armour issue, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has a specific interest in it, and he has expressed a view in the media about it: 15,000 sets of Osprey armour have been deployed into the operational theatre, and anybody who can do the simple arithmetic required will know that that is more than the number of people who have been deployed into both theatres. However, that does not guarantee that there is a set for every single individual, because soldiers, like Members of Parliament, come in different shapes and sizes.
	I undertook that the new Osprey body armour would be deployed into theatre by late autumn, and I suggest that the figure of 15,000 confirms that that has been achieved. I now tell the House that there will be sufficient body armour for absolutely everybody in theatre by January of next year, but I can also give the reassurance that nobody who is deployed in theatre into a situation where they are exposed to the possibility of being under fire is denied the use of Osprey armour. There are more than enough versions of that advanced system of body armour for everybody to have them. Therefore, I am confident that we have achieved the objective that we set, which reflects the answer that was given to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and that we will achieve our overall objective by January of next year.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked a number of specific questions about helicopters for which, candidly, I do not have the information to be able to answer. However, I will have those questions researched and answer them in writing. However, let me say in relation to helicopters that the hon. Gentleman is of course right to suggest that we should not promise what cannot be delivered, but he should also be careful not just to read what the newspaper headlines state that those in theatre say about helicopters. The headlines relating to the alleged request for more helicopters were not supported by the body of the actual interview with the commander of the British forces; that is not what he said in response to the Prime Minister's remarks. That having been said, we are constantly reviewing helicopter numbers, and there has been a significant increase in helicopter capability, particularly for Afghanistan. Along with senior members of the Department and my fellow Ministers, I am reviewing what we can do to increase the availability of helicopters not just by generating further air frames, but by generating the crew, spares and other support necessary to provide that further capability, if that is at all possible.
	On medical care, I point out that, as the House already knows, those who call for the reopening of military hospitals ought to remind themselves how we came to no longer have such hospitals. The defence cost study 15 of 1994 was responsible for the closure of our military hospitals, on the basis of saving money. In fact, in the light of developments in medical practice, closing those hospitals was the right thing to do. It is entirely appropriate that the best care be provided to our forces, and that is to be found in the national health service.
	As I said, we are seeking to provide a military-managed ward in an appropriate environment within Selly Oak. The hon. Gentleman associated himself with the criticisms that others have made of Selly Oak hospital by intervening in the debate in the manner that he did. If he is going to comment on the quality of NHS care, he should visit the hospital. I invite him to visit Selly Oak, to see the wards for himself and to speak to the troops, as I have done. I visited it very recently, and the troops who are getting that NHS help and service spoke with glowing praise for those providing that care.
	There has also been uninformed speculation about the way in which we record injuries and put our casualty figures into the public domain. It was suggested this week on the front page of a local newspaper that 5,000 injured troops were unable to be deployed on the front line because they were on an NHS waiting list. None of this is true. There may well be about 5,000 people in that medical category, but that does not mean that they are all injured. Some of those people are just being treated by their GPs, just as anybody in civilian life might be who was signed off by their doctor. The way in which we record and publish casualty figures—I am looking at that process, and I am prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—has been consistent over the years and is consistent historically with the way in which British forces have published such figures. Of course, had we changed it, we would have been accused of doing so in order to hide something else.
	I am very keen to have a system that puts the information that we have into the public domain as openly, freely and quickly as possible, and I will do everything that I can to get to that. But what I will not do is to ask those responsible for the safety of our troops on the ground to take part in some sort of bureaucratic exercise designed to serve the purposes of people who want to make political capital out of those casualties.

Des Browne: It is not in my gift to grant time in the House for a foreign policy debate, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I would welcome any opportunity to explain our policy on Iraq and Afghanistan from the point of view of the Ministry of Defence and the Government. I am proud of the work that we are doing in both theatres.
	The hon. Gentleman asks what our objectives are in Iraq. They have not changed. We are there at present in the context of a United Nations resolution to support the democratically elected Iraqi Government, to ensure that they run the country and, as I said in my statement, to support them at this challenging time. We should bear it in mind that the Government of national unity have been in existence for only 139 days. However, people are judging them against ambitions that would be challenging for Governments that had been in power for decades, if not centuries. They are facing attacks on their authority from terrorists. As I have explained from the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions, there are difficulties, especially in multinational division, south-east and in Basra, due to competition for economic and political power.
	We are there to provide support to the Iraqi security forces and that has not changed. In response to an earlier question, let me say that 307,000 members of those security forces—about half of them police officers—have been trained by the coalition since the training of forces started.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about my view of the comments of others—people who, I hasten to add, have no responsibility of government and no responsibility in Iraq—on what they think might be best, or what people think they think might be best for the Iraqi people. In my view, but, more importantly, in the view of the Iraqi people and their Government, the break-up of Iraq is not in their best interests. Their constitutional position allows for federalism in some circumstances, but that is a matter that they need to work through, which is what politics is about. That work may be difficult and challenging, but that is what democratic politics is like. If we want Iraq's Government to be a democratic Government, exercising control over their own people, we need to support them to do that.
	Like the hon. Member for Woodspring, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) raises our inability during the period in which our forces were deployed in northern Helmand—supporting the Afghan provincial government at the request of President Karzai and the national Government—to mobilise our forces in the central part of Helmand to carry out reconstruction work. Everybody knows about that—it is an historical fact, well documented and debated. The decision was made by our commanders on the ground and I fully support them in that. It appears, from the way in which they have been able to fight the Taliban to a standstill and get the support of the local population in those areas, that that effort has been successful. That success must be sustained, which will be a challenge. However, redeployment of forces back into the centre will allow us to carry out reconstruction work.
	I have here a document that sets out the reconstruction projects that have taken place in Helmand province, summarising completed projects, current projects and proposed projects. The document was provided to me by the Department for International Development for this statement. Rather than read it out, I shall place a copy in the Library so that all hon. Members can see what has been done. It is not the case that nothing has been done: a significant amount of reconstruction has been done in Helmand province, albeit not as much as we want.
	Is General Richards right to say that the next six months will the most important period in the Afghan operation? Yes—but in the five months that I have been in my present job, every next six months has been the most important six months in both theatres of operation. Everybody tells me that, and it is always true. That is the challenge that we face over the winter, and we will have to be up to it.

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Woodspring also raised that issue, which is at the heart of what we are trying to do in reconstruction. Not only our Government, but our allies in NATO and the EU will consistently be faced with the challenge of helping countries to move from conflict, through reconstruction and into a positive future. Part of that challenge, as he said, is to decide what measure of security is sufficient for us to deploy people who have not signed up to the military. Incidentally, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that all three forces are represented in Afghanistan and are making a significant contribution there. We have to decide, realistically, what degree of security we can generate in circumstances such as those in Helmand province, and whether that is sufficient for us to deploy people who, unlike members of the military, do not sign up for the level of risk that those who sign up for the military are prepared to accept.
	That is a significant challenge faced by the international community, and not just the British Government, so I have engaged with our international partners on it. We need to have a debate, because we need to find a way of delivering reconstruction in such circumstances repeatedly in future. There are many countries in Africa that we as an international community have ambitions to help. I am not suggesting that UK forces will be present, but other forces will be, and the exact circumstances will be replicated. We need to ask ourselves whether we can expose people doing reconstruction work to that level of risk, or where we can find and generate the partners who can do that work.
	Those are not easy questions to answer, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who has been to the area and seen the problems for himself, that that does not necessarily mean that people need to be present in the theatre to be able to provide support for reconstruction. We can find partners, and the list of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the Secretary of State? I allowed a long statement and a long response from Front Benchers because of the nature of this statement. This shows that Front Benchers can take an inordinate amount of time out of these statements. From this point on, I want very brief questions and brief answers. In the near future I will be making a Speaker's statement regarding the nature of statements that are brought to this House. Back Benchers are not getting the chance that they are entitled to.

Tobias Ellwood: On a recent visit to Lashkar Gah, it was clear that the troops were calling for more firepower, more mobility and more armour. They want more helicopters, in addition to the 12 that are there. They also would like to a Warrior battalion sent out. How many helicopters are there now, how many will be there in future and when will we see a Warrior battalion sent into theatre?

John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Government are committed to a properly balanced criminal justice system—a criminal justice system that protects the public inside and outside the home and in the workplace.
	In opening the debate, may I first pay tribute to Maurice de Rohan, who died late last week? Maurice de Rohan lost his daughter, Alison, and son-in-law, Francis, in the 1987 Zeebrugge ferry disaster, which claimed the lives of 187 people. He brought together people affected by a series of tragedies in the late 1980s out of which sprang the charity Disaster Action, which has provided an important advocacy and advisory service, giving voice to the survivors and the bereaved of major disasters and contributed significantly to the debate on corporate manslaughter. Maurice remained chairman of Disaster Action until October 2005 and was a trustee until his death. It is fitting that we mark his passing on this occasion.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He spoke for many in the House who knew Maurice de Rohan.
	It is as a result of the efforts of Disaster Action and indeed of others such as the trade union movement that have campaigned hard for reform that we are debating the Bill today. I pay tribute to all their efforts, including those with whom we are in substantial as well as entire agreement, and those with whom we have longstanding differences. The commonality of effort and objective here is far greater than any of the differences that separate us.
	Each year, more than 200 workers and many more members of the public are killed as a result of work-related incidents. Some are extremely serious incidents, in respect of which the companies involved have been strongly criticised.

John Reid: As my hon. Friend points out, a great range of people have an interest in the objective that we share today. Some of them come from the trade union movement, but the concern of many has been provoked by personal bereavement and grief. I hope that the Bill's introduction will give them some consolation, small though it may be. We will try to address the points raised and to meet some of those who have a direct interest in the issue. If I cannot personally do so, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) will. In fact, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the persistence with which he has pursued this issue. He was centrally involved in the discussions in Warwick on this issue and he has met many people to hear their stories. I am sure that he will be the first to make himself available to meet anyone who wishes to meet me if, in the short term, I cannot do so. I hope that that will apply to anyone who wishes to raise matters with us.

John Reid: Basically, since we are considering a corporate offence, imprisonment will not be an option because individuals will not answer on behalf of any company or corporate organisation except in a legal capacity. Fines will be unlimited and one would expect substantial fines for the sort of offence that we are considering. Of course, high fines have already been imposed in serious cases. For example, in the Balfour Beatty case, the fine was more than £7 million. Railtrack was fined £3.5 million in the Hatfield case.I believe that Transco was fined approximately£15 million for health and safety breaches. When we can bring such cases under existing law, that shows the seriousness with which the courts take them. However, the unlimited nature of the fines and their ability to be imposed without the need to prove individual liability, but taking into account systemic failures in the company or corporate organisation as a whole, is a sufficient combination to act as a deterrent to anyone who would conduct themselves in a fashion that would put people at risk.

Lorely Burt: On punishment and fines, will he explain why directors can be disqualified for gross breach of duty in respect of shareholders' investments, but not in respect of human lives?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Stopping slightly short of the point advanced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), it nevertheless occurs to me that, in cases where senior managers responsible—at least in part—for such systemic failure are directors of the company, no provision appears to be made in the Bill for their disqualification from continuing as company directors. If I am correct in that surmise, is the Home Secretary working on the assumption that in the most extreme cases, corporate embarrassment will probably suffice to remove such individuals from their posts? If not, upon what basis is he working?

John Reid: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. In the midst of the questions that are being asked, it is heartening to realise that there is a widespread recognition that, whatever our qualifications and reservations, people feel that the Bill is long overdue. I am also delighted that those comments were made because I know that my hon. Friend was involved in the Bill on gangmasters and has long been a supporter of taking action in this area.
	My hon. Friend raised an extremely important point about migrant workers and those who do not have access to the English language and to certain documents. We are working on that; we are trying to ensure that we provide sufficient advice on matters such as those that my hon. Friend raised, in order to bring them to the attention of those who do not read and write English in the way that some of us do—although, for all I know, they might speak English as well as some of us do. However, we are looking into that.
	On Crown immunity, the new offence will apply to Government Departments and other Crown bodies. For the first time, those bodies will be liable to prosecution for a criminal offence. It removes the anomaly created by Crown immunity and means that the public sector and the private sector will have the same liability under the new offence. That is a historic step.
	There is no good reason why Government Departments should be in a different position from their private sector counterparts for their responsibilities as employers or for securing the safety of their premises. These responsibilities are covered comprehensively by the offence for all employers. But there are exemptions, because there are differences between the Crown and other public authorities on the one side and the private sector on the other, and they are differences that demand recognition.
	Public bodies already operate within a strong framework of standards and accountability. Ministers are responsible to the electorate via Parliament, and fatalities can lead to public inquiries and other independent investigations. Public bodies are subject to specific obligations such as the Human Rights Act 1998, and their actions are open to challenge through specific mechanisms, including judicial review. Although this Bill provides a step towards equalising the approach in the public and private sectors, there are nevertheless differences between them because there are already a series of scrutiny mechanisms that apply to the public sector.

Dominic Grieve: May I first declare a personal interest, over and above being a member of the Bar? Health and safety at work has been my specialist field of practice for some years, and as it remains the only area in which I really practise at the Bar, the Bill has a direct professional relevance to me.
	I have no doubt at all that the Government's intentions are commendable. From my experience of practising in the field, and especially of prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive, which I did quite a lot before entering the House in the 1990s, I have no doubt about the gravity of several of the offences with which I dealt, and the poor reflection that those cases revealed of, especially, the operation of public companies and corporations and others. I am also aware of the anguish caused by death in any setting, and certainly by the unnecessary deaths caused by industrial accidents or by the activities of someone carrying out an undertaking. I echo the Home Secretary's remarks about those who have campaigned to determine whether improvements to the law could be made.
	I am also of the view that there is scope for change and improvement. As the Bill goes through Parliament, Conservative Members will certainly do what we can to co-operate with the Government to determine the aspects on which improvements can be made. I shall touch on one or two of those as I proceed with my remarks, and I look forward to considering the Bill in Committee, because we have the capacity to produce something of value.
	The problem that the Government have faced with the Bill—I hope that I am not being too unkind to the Home Secretary when I say that it was reflected in the slight hesitancy of some of his remarks—is that, as so often happens, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The Government wish to improve our body of legislation, which would be of value, but at the same time they have very properly not been prepared to be pushed or bulldozed by those who want the introduction of draconian legislation, especially in terms of penalties on individuals, that would go outside the scope of our normal principles of law.
	I entirely agree with the Home Secretary that we must deal with corporate manslaughter. The only fair way in which to deal with manslaughter allegations against individuals, with custodial sentences being imposed if transgression is shown, is under the existing framework of the manslaughter law. If we were to start departing from that—some have suggested that we should—it would quickly become apparent that people would be treated unjustly. It should not be the role of Parliament to do that, however tempting it might sometimes be.
	Having taken that decision and gone on to examine the problem of fixing corporations with allegations of manslaughter, which is inherent, and of which we know from the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise, which the Home Secretary and others cited, it seems that the Government have tried very hard to keep the notion of corporate manslaughter and produce a new framework that will enable corporations to be convicted. However, they face the problem of having ended up with a Bill about which it is at least legitimate to raise the question: what does it add to our existing laws in practical terms? I shall concentrate especially on that point, but before I do so, I want to consider several of the Bill's details and flag up for the Home Secretary some areas at which we will need to look carefully.
	The Home Secretary made it clear that the Bill is aimed at corporations. That makes it different from the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which is a much wider measure under which it is quite common to prosecute unincorporated associations without difficulty. Indeed, shortly before I became a Member of the House, I was involved in the prosecution of an unincorporated association: Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Having seen not only the seriousness of that case, which was about the port Ramsgate walkway collapse in which seven people were killed, but the size of Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the importance of its role in certifying new engineering structures concerned with the marine environment, I rather disagreed with the Home Secretary when it was suggested that unincorporated associations might not be an important element in ensuring health and safety at work. Of course, I also accept that in many cases unincorporated associations are likely to be small organisations, but if ever the Home Secretary wanted an example of an unincorporated organisation that is not small, there is one. I am bound to say that I am a bit worried about the prospect of putting on the statute book legislation that cannot encompass such an organisation, so I hope that we will be able to consider that during the Bill's passage.
	The Home Secretary properly identified the fact that the Bill includes important innovations. The removal of Crown immunity from Government Departments is welcome and a much-needed change. However, I was a little worried to note that the relevant schedule could be added to or taken away from by way of the negative procedure. That was not because I thought that the Home Secretary was suddenly going to say that he wanted to remove bodies from the list—although that would always be possible—but because if we are going to get the Bill right, we must decide at the outset who we are aiming it at. I thus have serious reservations about using the negative procedure to change the list. We need to use the affirmative procedure.
	We have touched on the whole issue of public authorities. The Home Secretary was quite right when he said that I might be wrong about the NHS health trust in the context in which I put my point to him. Having read the Bill, I am just not sure. If someone were put on a health trust trolley that collapsed and caused the person to suffer a serious injury, I have little doubt that the health trust could be responsible. If a patient falls down a staircase or is injured in a lift, it is clear that, as an occupier of premises, the trust will be covered by the legislation. However, the position is rather less clear to me when it comes to, for example, the training of medical staff. In a case in which I had a peripheral involvement, some junior hospital doctors were prosecuted for manslaughter for killing a patient. They were very junior and their circumstances were such that there might be some degree of public sympathy for them, but serious criticism was made of the health trust for the manner in which it had looked after the doctors and provided them with supervision and training.
	At present, that matter is certainly covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but would it be covered by the Bill? I do not know. The Home Secretary might be able to intervene and tell me straight away that I am worrying about nothing, but it seems to me that that case reveals the grey area between direct activities, such as running premises, and public policy issues, such as whether enough money was spent on the doctors' training. We shall have to focus and concentrate on that matter.

Dominic Grieve: I am not sure that I agree. There are two points to make. First, if an improvement or prohibition notice is contested, there is a hearing in front of an employment tribunal, which takes place in public. Secondly, in the majority of cases in which I have been involved, on sentencing, it has been made perfectly clear in court that improvement and prohibition notices had been served—indeed, they often form part of the evidence in the case—and the public will have been made fully aware of the nature of the prohibition and improvement notices. Again, that is a matter that we can consider. It struck me when I first read the Bill that—with the caveat that the hon. Gentleman properly picked up on—if organisations covered by the Bill are not covered by the 1974 Act, remedial orders against a Government Department might have some relevance. We should be careful not to over-egg the pudding in that respect; otherwise, we give the public the impression that something highly novel is being introduced when it has been in place for a considerable time.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which ties in with the respective roles of the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police which, to my mind, remain somewhat opaque. That will be of key importance if the legislation is to have any force at all. A protocol governing the investigation of death is currently in force between the HSE, the CPS and the police, as even today there are occasions when the police and the CPS become involved because they believe that manslaughter proceedings may follow. May I tell the Home Secretary—this follows on from my earlier comment about length of time—that those are complicating features in the investigation of offences? I can only speak from my experience, but I say categorically that the moment that the police become involved in the investigation of a health and safety offence, the case takes considerable time, and in many instances I was left with the distinct impression that the required expertise is simply not available.
	I do not know how we will work our way around that. I note that in the submissions made to the Joint Committee, the Health and Safety Executive made it abundantly clear that it did not wish to become involved directly in bringing corporate manslaughter prosecutions, because it took the view that, given the complex construct that had been put together, it would not have the relevant expertise, and involvement would in fact inhibit its other work. That is the inference that I derived from its submissions. In those circumstances, how will the process be managed?
	To move on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), at the end of the process, who will monitor the remedial order? I assume that it will be the Health and Safety Executive, because I cannot imagine anyone else being in a position to do so. We have, in the Health and Safety Executive, a reservoir of outstandingly good expertise, as I know from direct personal experience. It ranges across every area of industrial work and activity, whether the circumstances relate to the nuclear inspectorate, the rail inspectorate or, indeed, to more general concerns.
	It is worth bearing in mind, too, that many prosecutions brought under the 1974 Act are brought by local authorities, but they have great difficulty finding the expertise to bring those prosecutions. If a remedial order is imposed by a court, and it falls outside the Health and Safety Executive's responsibility because it applies to a warehouse—the operation of a warehouse does not fall within the Health and Safety Executive's remit—then it is a case for a local authority. Some warehouses have thousands of square feet of storage, and adopt complex methods of operation. Who will supervise the remedial notice in those circumstances?

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. I cannot remember, but my recollection is that most offences under the 1974 Act relating to prohibition orders are subject to a fine, which is on a scale. However, it appears from clause 10(4) that failure to comply with a remedial order could be subject to an unlimited fine. If I am right about that difference, it suggests that there is a difference between a remedial order and a prohibition order, in terms of the fine that can be levied for breach thereof; that would be a more powerful incentive for the employer.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, but the other way of looking at it is that under the 1974 Act someone who does not comply with an improvement notice will face the end of their business, full stop—they will no longer be allowed to operate. In all enforcement proceedings in the public sphere, history has shown that it is usually the threat of an injunction, whichever form it takes—in the civil courts or through a magistrates court—that ultimately brings about compliance, because such an injunction means that people can no longer earn their livelihoods and are put out of business, which they richly deserve if they do not comply with such orders.
	I have to say that I am not persuaded by these measures. I do not, with the single caveat about remedial orders applying to Government Departments, whereas improvement notices do not, see their advantage. It is worth pointing out that the Health and Safety Executive already issues improvement notices through the Crown procedure against Crown bodies and the use of Crown notices and censures—for example, 14 in 2003-04, 11 in 2000-01, and six in 2004-05. It also occasionally issues prohibition notices against Government Departments. That must have worked all right, otherwise we would have heard about it in this House. I would rather hope that the Government were complying with a procedure that they themselves had set up. To that extent, returning to the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), remedial orders may add very little to what is available in this setting.
	I want to return to the 1974 Act. I am conscious that the Government have already reached a decision in this respect—they have decided that they want the offence of corporate manslaughter—and I suppose that my hon. Friends and I will do our best to help them now that they have done so. However, my own instincts, including a desire to see rigorous application of health and safety in all spheres, make me wonder whether we have not made a mistake. In the 1974 Act, Lord Robens did this country a signal good service. It is a very well crafted piece of legislation. I have never heard it criticised except sometimes in relation to subsidiary regulations accused of being too onerous. The nub of the legislation itself has stood the test of time extremely well. The thing that it does, which the Bill does not do, is to simplify the law in terms of the duties of care owed by employers to their own employees and to those who might be affected by their undertakings in such a way that over the 30-year period of its operation there has been a series of important judgments whereby every weasel argument that employerscan put forward to try to justify getting themselvesoff the hook—for example, passing the buck to subcontractors—has been completely and utterly eliminated.
	The 1974 Act is one of the most powerful and effective regulatory tools put on to the statute book by Government. Far from being limp in its impact, we can see that in recent years the fines imposed for serious accidents and death—unlimited in the Crown court—have risen stratospherically. The Home Secretary spoke of £7.5 million in relation to the Hatfield rail crash, but even for accidents that may not result from quite such a major disaster, large fines against corporations—hundreds of thousands of pounds for single deaths or even sometimes for the creation of risk—are routine. There is every sign that that trend is continuing upwards as a result of societal pressure to mark disapproval of those whose safety systems are inadequate.

Dominic Grieve: I am not certain that I agree. The difficulty is that if a large corporation such as a Tesco or a Sainsbury's kills an employee, a fine of millions of pounds may make little dent on its balance sheet. One of the problems that we have to face up to is that many of those prosecuted under the 1974 Act are individuals with very limited means. If a fine of £2 million is imposed because it marks the gravity of the offence, it will never be collected because there is nowhere near that amount to be collected. It is true that the company, in the case of a corporation, will be put out of business—indeed, there is authority in the Court of Appeal that says that in some cases that may be a very good thing to do—but unless that is the intention, the size of the fine becomes rather meaningless.
	Let me say to the Home Secretary, because it is important that the public should understand this, that I am very doubtful that, having introduced the new concept of corporate manslaughter, the fines imposed will be very different. I can see that in the case of major corporations it may be possible to impose a much higher fine and to say, "We are moving into the£20 million or £30 million range because as you are a multi-billion pound corporation we want to hurt you in your pocket." I, for one, have no difficulty with that. In many cases, however, as I am sure that the Home Secretary has been told, the companies prosecuted will be cowboy operators, individuals with very limited resources and companies whose only assets are, in effect, their annual turnover and profit. In those circumstances, courts will not impose multi-million pound fines, because they will be shown—as they are under the terms of the 1974 Act—balance sheets and the accounts of the company, and if they decide not to put it out of business, they will have to impose a fine that is commensurate with its ability to pay it. As has often been argued, in the case of public authorities the money that is levied as a fine takes from them the very money to carry out the necessary improvements to meet the standard that they should have delivered from the start.
	I have a question mark in my mind as to whether in reality we will find ourselves moving into a different fine regime. The danger is that we will end up with people who, having had their expectations raised, find themselves left with a feeling of distress and disappointment that the horror of what has happened to a near relative has not been responded to. I see no easy way out of that and therefore wonder whether we are not, in enacting this legislation, making unnecessary difficulties for ourselves. I endorse the point made before the Joint Committee—that we should have, under sections 2 and 3 of the 1974 Act, a separate aggravated offence of an act by which death results. There would then be some sentencing guidelines emphasising that much higher fines should be imposed in those circumstances, and we could see whether that works.
	However well-intentioned the Bill, the fact remains that conviction rates in prosecutions under the 1974 Act are some of the highest in any field of criminal justice—consistently more than 80 per cent. and in some cases closer to 90 per cent. in any 12-month period. That is because it is so drafted and interpreted that it imposes an arm-twist on any defendant from which they will have great difficulty in escaping. It worries me that, in contrast, this Bill seems very complicated. Having declared my interest at the outset, I cannot help wondering whether we are about to create another lawyers' bonanza.
	There is a risk, given the complexity of the issues of duty and care and breach—and the fact that corporations might be more reluctant to plead guilty because of the opprobrium attached to a manslaughter conviction—that we might end up with far more contested cases. Under health and safety at work legislation, a contested case relating to a major disaster can last for many weeks and cost a lot of money. It is true that that money can usually be recouped from the defendant, unlike in most criminal justice cases; even so, we ought to bear in mind such factors.
	Having said that, I am mindful that the Home Secretary has probably made up his mind on that point, but I shall nevertheless seek to explore it in Committee. At the end of the day, we should be concerned not about the words but about the results. Our aim should be to enact legislation that changes the attitudes of those who might be negligent, hits them selectively and properly in their pockets to encourage them to act with care, and produces a better sense of public justice. However, those three aims need to be kept in the balance, and the test of the Bill's success will not be what we say in the House but whether it achieves those results.

Andrew Dismore: Before I came to the House, I was a personal injury lawyer. Indeed, I suppose that I still am, although I no longer take any cases. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	As a personal injury lawyer, I represented many families bereaved by avoidable accidents, including major incidents such as Zeebrugge and the King's Cross fire. Most of the cases, however, involved the deaths of individuals such as motorists, employees and pedestrians, which went unremarked in the press. But the feeling of loss and sense of injustice suffered by the victims' families were the same as the feeling of loss and sense of injustice suffered by those bereaved by the major incidents.
	Three days after the terrible tragedy at King's Cross, my investigations on behalf of the bereaved and injured led me to inspect what was left of the tube station. Nothing that I had previously experienced could have prepared me for the sights and smells of the fire's devastation that I encountered there. As I took statements from victims, distraught relatives, firefighters and tube staff, and as I sat through the public inquiry day after day, hearing over and again about the failures of the management of London Underground Ltd, it struck me as outrageous that neither the company nor any of its managers would face criminal proceedings over those 31 unnecessary deaths.
	That was because of the inadequacies of the criminal law, and since then I have been campaigning to rectify those inadequacies. The Bill intends to correct them,20 years after the horrors of Zeebrugge and King's Cross, 10 years after the royal commission's recommendations for change, and six years after my own private Member's Bill. While I naturally prefer the wording of my own Bill, which was simple and effective, I believe that, despite containing shortcomings on which we shall have to focus, this Bill makes some progress towards achieving our aims.
	I have long believed that we need a new law based on three principles. First, when the conduct of a company's management falling far below what can reasonably be expected is the cause—or one of the causes—of a person's death, that company must answer to the criminal courts. Secondly, if the company is convicted, the court should not only be able to punish it severely but have the power to order it to put right the failings that caused the death. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, there is a need to impose on the senior management of a company an overarching responsibility for the health and safety of its work force and, equally important, of the general public.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, reported on the Bill today. There is a clear obligation under article 2 of the European convention on human rights to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed by appropriate law enforcement. In certain circumstances, this obligation requires the state to ensure that recourse to the criminal law is possible against both private and public bodies in serious cases of unintentional deaths.
	In the Committee's view, there is a clear obligation under article 2 to introduce an offence of corporate manslaughter that would enable recourse to the criminal law against both private and public bodies in circumstances in which that is not possible under the present law, where such recourse would be required under article 2. The Committee therefore welcomes the objective of the Bill as a human rights-enhancing purpose. For me, however, the acid test will be whether it will be easier to prosecute. Thinking back to the disasters of the 1980s and subsequently, would prosecutions that failed at the time—or that were never even brought—have succeeded if these provisions had been available?
	I am worried that the original, broader, definition—used, for example, in the 2000 consultation—that referred to "undertakings" has been removed so as to exclude unincorporated associations. It is suggested that small businesses in this category—against which prosecutions have succeeded under the existing law, which is being abolished by the Bill—would see cases brought against a named trader alone, and that large partnerships such as accountants and lawyers are low risks. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave a good example in relation to Lloyd's. But what of architects, for example—who often practise in partnerships—who design a building that collapses, or is gutted by fire, due to grossly negligent design? Schools, clubs and even trade unions are outside the current scope of the Bill.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered whether these various restrictions on the scope of the new offence were incompatible with the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of convention rights under article 14 of the European convention, in conjunction with the right to life in article 2. In my Committee's view, article 14 is engaged because the various restrictions, exclusions and exemptions give rise to differential treatment of individuals in analogous situations in relation to their access to the criminal law in respect of negligently caused death.
	The Committee noted that, in the 2000 consultation paper, the Government accepted that to restrict the scope of the offence by excluding unincorporated bodies
	"could lead to an inconsistency of approach and these distinctions might appear arbitrary."
	To avoid that risk of arbitrariness, the Government at that stage proposed that the new offence shouldapply to "undertakings", which would include unincorporated as well as incorporated bodies. In the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the public nature of a body's function has not been regarded as a reason for excluding criminal liability, but on the contrary has been treated as a factor which strengthens the obligation to ensure that recourse to the criminal law is available. The obvious answer is to revert to the original proposal to apply the new offence to "undertakings".
	I very much welcome the extension of the Bill to apply to the Crown, as does the Human Rights Committee. However, my Committee considers that the restrictions, exemptions and exclusions in the Bill will preclude the possibility of prosecution for corporate manslaughter in precisely those contexts in which the positive obligation in article 2 is at its strongest, and in which a criminal prosecution should be brought: the use of lethal force by the police or army; deaths in custody; and deaths of vulnerable children who should be in care—to name just a few examples. This would mean that, in situations in which responsibility for the death lay with a management failure in a public body, rather than with any identifiable individual, recourse to the criminal law would not be possible.
	In a sufficiently serious case, that would be likely to lead to the United Kingdom being found to be in breach of its positive obligation under article 2 to put in place an effective system of judicial remedies, including, in certain circumstances, recourse to the criminal law. In particular, this would apply to deaths in custody. It is not enough to say that there are extensive provisions to investigate these deaths already. So there are, too, for transport accidents, chemical plant explosions, or the humble factory death. Individual prosecutions are not the answer either. There is no logical reason to exclude institutional operational failures, which may lead to a death in custody, from the provisions of the Bill.
	In our report, the Committee gives an example to demonstrate this point. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is currently being prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in respect of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. If the Bill becomes law unamended, and if, hypothetically, there were clear evidence that a similar shooting was the result of gross negligence on the part of the senior management of the Metropolitan police, but was not attributable to one individual officer who could be described as the controlling mind of the organisation, it would not be possible for the Metropolitan police as a public authority to be prosecuted in respect of the death. It would still only be possible to bring proceedings against the Metropolitan police as a public authority under health and safety legislation, as now, for a much less serious offence. In such circumstances, there would be a strong likelihood that the United Kingdom would be found to be in breach of the positive obligation in article 2, because the criminal offences charged did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct which led to the death, and the judicial system in place was not adequate to secure the full accountability of state authorities for their role in the death.

Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another possible consequence of the Bill is that it will depress fines imposed for deaths that are only prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act? Might that not be an unintended consequence of the new framework?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He also made an important point about the possibility that one prosecution would fail where another might succeed. Ultimately, however, the decision must be for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who must authorise prosecutions.
	What is important is for us to look at a wider range of alternatives. A series of suggestions have been made. One is corporate probation, a supervision order imposed by the court on a company that has committed a criminal offence. A court can require a company, its officers or its directors to alter their conduct in a particular way. Those penalties have been used very successfully in, for example, the United States and Canada. Another option is the use of equity fines. They would reduce the value of shares in the company, clearly bringing home to shareholders—the owners of the company—the implications and effect of the criminal offence that their company had committed.
	I think that the Bill's main shortcoming is the lack of individual liability. In my view, that is one of the essential requirements of a successful reform of the law such as I proposed in my own Bill. Since 2003, the Government have ruled out individual directors' liability in criminal law, which I consider to be a tragic mistake. The strongest incentive for an individual director would be that he could stand in place of his company in the dock as a result of its failings, leading to the deaths of employees or members of the public. If company directors can face individual liability for offences committed by their companies under the Companies Act 1989, or frauds committed by their companies, it is so much more right that they should face prosecution if those companies kill.
	Without that, the only option is prosecution for regulatory offences. However—this picks up a point raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—there is a strong argument that it is an abuse of process to charge a company with two offences, corporate manslaughter and breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, arising from the same circumstances. But without a conviction under the Act, there can be no individual liability of directors or managers under section 37. We could end up with corporate manslaughter charges actually reducing the individual liability of directors in the most serious cases.
	Given that clause 17 also excludes secondary offences, I believe that one of the main requirements of reform has been rejected. After all, the purpose of the Bill must be to act as a deterrent, which, without individual liability, it is far less likely to do.
	Let me end with a short comment on jurisdiction. Much has been written about it, especially when the failures have been in England and Wales but the deaths have occurred in either Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, I am anxious that we should not rule out possible prosecutions when a death could be further afield.
	It is well established that inquests can be held into deaths abroad—indeed, they may be required under human rights obligations. What if an inquest reveals facts that show that serious management failure in England led to a death overseas, but, owing to the Bill's limited jurisdiction, those responsible cannot be prosecuted? Of course, ships and planes may be under our jurisdiction, but what of the package tourist killed on a far eastern holiday as a result of the substandard construction of his hotel, which the British-based tour company knew about and ignored, or killed by bandits or terrorists when the tour company had clear warnings but turned a blind eye in the interests of profit? I believe that we would face immediate calls for further change in the law, as has happened in relation to compensation for victims of crime abroad as a result of recent terrorist attacks.
	Having said all that, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have engaged with so many organisations in considering suggestions for improvement. However, given the Bill's current drafting, I also believe that the answer to my original proposition "Will it be easier to prosecute companies that kill?" is a resounding "No". While some obstacles have been overcome, other more serious obstacles have been created. I have highlighted just some of the shortcomings which I believe must be addressed in Committee, so that we can all welcome the Bill as a major improvement in health and safety in the workplace, in our transport system and in our public services, ensuring that our manifesto commitment for three elections is met in full.

Edward Davey: I may have been corrected immediately but I guess that the Government have rejected the most serious and significant recommendations, while accepting a few drafting amendments.
	Our first concern is with senior management failure. We heard from the Home Secretary that he may move on that issue but I wish to press that point, which is very significant. It is the issue that is supposed to move the legislation on. If we fail to deal with it, we are wasting our time tonight.
	The issue of individual liability, referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon, is significant, not least because the Government have U-turned on the issue compared with the previous consultation. There is also the issue of Crown immunity. The Government are right to be proud that they are getting rid of Crown immunity in a number of areas, but many outside this place believe that the number of exemptions in the Bill is large and that they go extremely wide; they are not narrow, as Home Office Ministers sometimes would have us believe.
	There is a real danger that a death caused by a public organisation will be put on a different level from a death caused by a private organisation. That seems to be completely wrong in principle and the Home Secretary used some weasel words to justify that discrimination. We should not accept them. If the Government are so keen on victims' rights, those who are victims of gross negligence by a public organisation, and their families, should be able to seek justice against that organisation.
	The fourth issue is the duty of care test, which is part of the core edifice on which the Bill is built. I am told that a number of examples showed corporate negligence at an appalling level where there was no duty of care. The duty of care test is relatively limited in the Bill and we are concerned that the test from civil law is somehow being planted into criminal law.
	The fifth area on which I want to focus is sanctions. Others have mentioned the inadequacy of, and lack of imagination in, sanctions on corporate bodies, but what about public bodies? There is a real danger that fines imposed on a public body will simply result in extra allocations of resources to that public body to ensure that the public service that it provides is not hindered. We must think more imaginatively if we are to make sure that public organisations feel the heat of the guilty verdict.
	My first set of remarks is on management failure. If the Government stick by their proposal or even change the wording of the Bill in a minor way, they will be storing up problems. The real problem is that the Government are giving an incentive to delegate health and safety issues outside the immediate realm of senior managers. According to surveys of businesses, that is already happening in anticipation of the Bill. Directors are passing down responsibility for health and safety matters to junior managers. They justify that by saying that every factory in the organisation is different, that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate and that the local manager should decide the best way to deal with health and safety matters. It would be perverse if the measure were to reduce the importance of health and safety to corporations. That needs careful examination in Committee because we could end up with a far worse situation.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield, in some detail, touched on the fact that the test for senior management failure could lead to extra complexity and add longevity to trials as one tries to decide whether there was a senior management failure or a failure of the wider organisation. I hope that, when we get the letter from the Home Secretary, we can have more detail and he will have moved significantly. If not, that will fatally undermine the Bill. We look forward to receiving the letter.
	On individual liability, the Government could have approached the issue in a number of ways. The Home Secretary is right to say that it will still be possible to take an individual director to court on a charge of gross negligence. However, he started his remarks by saying how difficult that was, particularly in large organisations, so he was arguing against himself. Clause 17 deals with the idea of secondary liability, whereby if the corporation is found guilty of corporate manslaughter, the individual director
	"cannot be guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence".
	Striking that provision out of the Bill seems to us quite wrong. It could mean that while the corporate body is penalised, the court cannot deal with the senior level individual who was responsible. We hope that the Government will reflect on that point again in Committee. Justice must be seen to be done and there is a real danger that clause 17 will reduce the courts' ability to find individuals guilty.
	On Crown immunity, the Government's movement is incredibly welcome. Although I would not use the Home Secretary's term "historic", the provisions represent an important move forward. We have seen too many examples in the past of Government Departments and agencies committing serious offences without being held to account for them. I worry that there are too many loopholes. The hon. Member for Hendon referred to loopholes in respect of offences under health and safety legislation. The Government said in their response to the Select Committee report that they would look at the issue again. They need to do so, because allowing such an exemption seems bizarre.
	I am particularly worried by clause 4(4), which deals with the exclusion from Crown immunity of services that are "exclusively public function". Some people believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the provision is so broad that it amounts to a catch-all phrase that would retain Crown immunity for a large number of organisations. We also want to test that argument out in Committee. Many believe that the provision will affect the custody of prisoners, either by the Prison Service or the police or in immigration detention centres. There is a danger of Crown immunity preventing prosecutions where deaths in custody have taken place. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the hon. Member for Hendon—would probably confirm that his Committee was indeed worried about that point. Under the European convention on human rights, the authorities have a duty to protect prisoners and there is a danger of this exemption preventing the Government from meeting their obligations.

Jimmy Hood: Like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I am not a lawyer, but I have to say that if he had not told me that he was not, I would not have known. He made a few valid points, some of which I agree with and some that I do not.
	All my adult life, I have championed the cause of safety and health in the workplace. I was 23 years a miner, 14 of them as a union official and a workman's inspector. Safety and health is an inspirational issue that has guided working class people in their trade unions and in their representation in Parliament for the best part of a century. I recognise the need for the Bill to be improved, but I welcome the fact that it will receive its Second Reading tonight.
	The Government are fulfilling the promise that they made a few years ago. We would have preferred to have it sooner, but we should not forget the good work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000, after disasters on the railways such as Hatfield. He introduced culpable homicide legislation, and this is a further step on the way that we should welcome.
	For a lad brought up in a mining community, the trauma of miners killed in pit disasters and gas explosions, and dying from mining diseases, was commonplace. As a young boy, I saw my father come home too many times from the pit to tell us that a workman had been killed. Sadly, mining communities knew how to respond in solidarity to the loss of one of their own, because it was all too common. Miners' lives were a price that the coal owners thought was worth paying for the pittance in wages that miners got at the time.
	On too many occasions as a mining union official, I had to go and tell a wife that her husband and father of her children would not be coming home. That personal experience influences everything that I have said and done in this place for 20 years. I know, in my heart of hearts, that had there been a law that told the director of the colliery where I worked that he could be held personally responsible for the loss of life, many of those mining disasters would have been averted and a lot of lives saved. So I do not make anything small of this important step. We will want to tweak and improve parts of the Bill, but it is an important step.
	For those in other parties who are less enthusiastic in their support for the Bill, I shall end with a few words about the 1999 Larkhall gas explosion. On the evening of 22 December 1999, a mother and father and their two children went to bed, looking forward to Christmas. At 5.30 in the morning, their house was blown up in a gas explosion and their lives were extinguished. That family—Drew and Janette Findlay, with their two children, Stacey, 13 years old and Daryl, 11 years old—was lost. The Home Secretary mentioned Transco, the corporation that was held responsible for the explosion.
	Nothing that I had experienced prepared me for the trauma of that perplexing tragedy. It was not a workplace accident; it happened in the sanctuary of a young couple's home. A family with everything to live for was taken from us by what we now know was a disaster that should not have happened and would not have happened were it not for Transco's corporate negligence.
	Transco was fined a record £15 million under health and safety legislation. It was not convicted under Scots law of culpable homicide—it got off on that. Fifteen million pounds is double the highest fine in England, which was £7.5 million, as was mentioned earlier. Although £15 million may sound a lot of money, Transco was found guilty and culpable of the deaths of the family in Larkhall because of its corporate negligence in not spending £350 million in renewing the pipelines that would have prevented the deaths of the Findlays. It is claimed that a fine of £15 million could be viewed as a deterrent, but it does not appear so when compared with the £350 million that the corporation did not spend. The only deterrent would be a law that holds someone responsible and influences such people's decision making so that they know that, when they give an executive order, if lives are lost, the price is their freedom. They have to be accountable.
	It is no comfort to families who have lost their loved ones to hear of fines to corporations. That would not give the Findlay family in Larkhall comfort. We need legislation that protects our families. That is just. I welcome Second Reading but my test in Committee and on Third Reading will be, "Are families safer because of the Bill?" Will families, such as the Findlays, who went to their beds looking forward to Christmas, be safer because of the legislation that we pass? I hope that the answer is yes.

James Duddridge: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), who made a moving speech.
	Clearly, there is a case for action, but what sort of action? My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a good case for amending the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. However, I understand that there may be good reason not to do that. If a member of my family had been killed in a tragedy such as those that we are considering, I would find it insulting that the matter was covered by health and safety legislation. Equally, having met families affected by other tragedies, who are getting over a period of grief, I know that getting justice quickly is important. It worries me that introducing a new Bill rather than amending the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 could increase the time for bringing about justice. If a prosecution under corporate manslaughter fails, there may be another two-year wait for a health and safety prosecution.
	I am not a lawyer but in reading around the Bill, I kept reverting to a basic question. Why are we pushing the Bill forward? Is it to punish corporates or for the purpose of prevention? Although there is clearly a link between the two, the question is important because of the criteria for success when we look back in future. If we are trying to punish—there is good reason to punish some of those evil corporates—why do we predict only 10 or 13 prosecutions a year? Those are simply prosecutions, not necessarily successful ones.
	Perhaps a punishment argument makes sense if it pump-primes change and makes more corporates think carefully about what they do. However, if that is the point of the Bill, the regulatory impact assessment would involve significant change and extra cost.I do not mean negative cost but cost such as the£350 million that could have saved lives, which was described earlier. If prevention is the key, perhaps that bolsters the case for amending the 1974 Act and examining corporate manslaughter through that prism rather than a new measure.
	I was worried about the identification principle and trying to find a directing mind in an organisation. Clause 2, which defines "senior managers", would effectively create the same problems exist in current legislation. The Home Secretary started to reassure me and I believed that he had taken on board all the Select Committee's comments. However, in Committee we must examine the wording in detail because, at the end of his contribution, the Home Secretary referred to some form of judgment about the majority of senior managers. He used the words that he had appeared to try to avoid.
	Like the Centre for Corporate Accountability, I am worried that health and safety will be relegated in an organisation to below the level of senior managers, to avoid overall prosecution. None of us supports that.
	I congratulate the Government on the welcome removal of Crown indemnity. However, they can go several steps further. Perhaps they should not include all public bodies—there is a compelling case about emergency services and the armed forces—but several hon. Members mentioned the Prison Service. Pauline Day, a constituent of mine, had a son, Paul Day, who died in a segregation unit. That led to one of the longest death-in-custody inquests in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to explain why, in such cases, the Government are effectively looking at themselves. If something is right for the private sector, why is not it right for the public sector? That applies even more to privatised prisons. A benefit of providing a public service at a distance from Government should be that the Government have greater control and can exercise greater accountability over that prison. It is ludicrous that we can put services out to private prisons but not gain the full benefits of doing that.
	The Joint Committee, chaired ably, I am sure, by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), said that exempting public bodies may even contravene article 14 of the European convention on human rights. We have looked at this matter for some 12 years and I am amazed that something so fundamental should have emerged only so recently. Clearly, there remains an awful lot of work to be done.
	I turn now to the Bill's impact on company structures. Does the Minister anticipate that they will change? Will companies contract out risk? For instance, will service industries that get involved in dirtier, more risky pursuits contract out the work to avoid the risk of prosecution? That might happen even with good companies, and even when the risk is quite small. Does the Minister agree that large corporates could set up shell companies to isolate the risk? Even good companies might do that to mitigate the health and safety risk.
	What is the statute of limitations in these cases? What types of case could be prosecuted under the corporate manslaughter provisions? In the past, we have had cases involving asbestos, but what will be their equivalent in the future? Will corporates that promote smoking in new markets be prosecuted?
	Will customers or employees waive their rights under this Bill? If I go bungee jumping, most people would accept that it is right for me to be able to waive someof my health and safety rights, but wrong to waive them all.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene, because although it is not for me to respond for the Government, it seems to me that if the Bill has any merit at all it is that it gets rid of the confusion and difficulties caused by the need to find in a corporate manslaughter prosecution an individual or group of individuals who can be identified as the directing mind. Removing that confusion and replacing it with the measures in the Bill is sensible, because it relieves the court and the prosecution of that hurdle. I agree that the Home Secretary did not have full mastery of his Bill, but he was clear about this point, which he made a couple of times: the individual personal liability for manslaughter by gross negligence remains. If the Bill has merit, it is that of getting rid of the confusion that has led to many wasted prosecutions—wasted time, emotion and cost—chasing corporate defendants through the principle of identification, so I urgethe hon. Gentleman to reconsider his criticism of clause 18.

Tony Lloyd: I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him, too, to reflect. Although I understand the concept of getting rid of a test that has proved burdensome and has therefore prevented prosecutions, when it is clear that there actually is a controlling mind, which behaved inappropriately or, in some cases, outrageously, it does not seem inappropriate to maintain on the statute book the present manslaughter test that would allow prosecution of an individual as well as a corporation.
	People will have to come to their own subjective view on the big questions about the point of the legislation. In the end, if the question is not really whether lawyers can define in court the right and proper way to judge a case before the judicial process, but something rather different—whether the legislation can help us to change the health and safety culture—we have to examine how the law can best help us to change the minds of employers or managers who are sometimes reckless, but sometimes simply indifferent.
	To go back to the Herald of Free Enterprise case, it is almost inconceivable that we could go as far as saying that any of the senior people in P&O deliberately set out to kill passengers on the ferry. That would be a charge too much, even for me, as someone who has the lowest possible view of P&O management at the time—those sloppy managers who were unfit to manage a large company. However, in that context, was the law that applied to P&O at the time, which included the concept of potential corporate manslaughter—even though it was not possible to prosecute in that case—so clearly defined in the minds of management that they could take risks under that law that they would not take under the law that we propose to introduce? It would be incredible if there was such a fine degree of decision making among managers about the level of risk they were prepared to take in a given situation.
	The problem with P&O was that the company was reckless not by deliberate action but because health and safety did not figure strongly enough in its culture at the time. The company took no real action to drive through a health and safety regime.
	I hope that the Government will continue to consider the need to make sure that those who should drive the health and safety case through companies have a specific responsibility. In the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise, that was not the captain, the chief officer or the bosun, but the most senior P&O managers who failed to make the safety case throughout their whole corporate structure and thus allowed such lax standards that 187 people died.
	If we are to change that culture and to stop not only those who are deliberately indifferent, but also—much more commonly—those who are simply casual in their view of their employees and the general public, there must be direct responsibility for health and safety. There must be named directors for health and safety—as there are for financial duties—whose role and responsibility is to drive through regulations about acceptable standards throughout the organisation. The health and safety directors would thus have an adequate defence if things went wrong, because they could show that there was due diligence in the company and a proper attempt to provide a healthy and safe working environment. If that was not so, the health and safety directors should end up in prison—as they should have done in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise.
	I strongly support the Bill, although I hope we can improve it. I hope that we can go beyond its provisions and make the safety case that will drive through proper, safe working environments, not simply for those in the workplace but for those who use our places of work—ferries, trains and so on. We must make sure that in the future there will not be another Herald of Free Enterprise, and I shall not have to pay tribute to people whose humanity transcends personal tragedy because we shall have stopped the personal tragedies.

Jeremy Wright: I start by agreeing with a sentiment that has been expressed by Members on both sides of the House during the debate: a great many bereaved families across the country have waited a long time for this gap in the law to be plugged. To that degree, I congratulate the Government on making an effort to do just that. I fear, however, that this Bill is not the legislation for which all those families have been waiting.
	I want to deal with two problems, both of which other Members have touched on already. The first problem, which the Government have correctly identified, is with the original common-law offence of gross negligence manslaughter—the difficulty of identifying the directing mind. That is the right problem to focus on, but I fear that we have only a partial solution, because the Government have introduced a piece of legislation that deals with it only inasmuch as it narrows down the offence.
	The Bill refers to senior managers and the need to identify negligence as being perpetrated by them as a group. I accept that that is better than trying to find an individual manager, but it is still not quite good enough. It will not avoid entirely the difficulty posed to the Crown Prosecution Service and juries by the original common-law offence—trying to find out who in particular was responsible. An element of that concept must be retained, because to determine that the people responsible were senior rather than junior managers, a degree of detective work is required by the CPS and a degree of judgment by the jury. That problem has not yet been resolved.
	The more substantive problem, on which I want to focus specifically, is Crown immunity. Like other Members, I applaud the removal of Crown immunity in principle, but I suspect that through the lengthy, detailed and wide-ranging exemptions under clauses 4 to 8, that good move has been substantially undermined. The exemptions are far too wide.
	The Government have set out to do something worthwhile and noble—to deliver a level playing field between public and private enterprises. Unfortunately, that is not what the Bill delivers. The excessive width of the exemptions is wrong for two reasons. They are needlessly and damagingly wide. I say damagingly, because the impression may be left in the mind of the public that the Government are trying to protect themselves from the things on which they are most vulnerable—the cases that are most likely to come to court under the Bill. It would be most unfortunate if that were the perception given by the Government, although I do not think for a moment that is their intention. However, unless that part of the Bill is amended, there is a distinct danger that that impression will be given.
	We do not want it to appear that the Government are including in the exemptions all the cases that have appeared in the headlines in recent months and years and all the cases in which the public might think that the Government were most vulnerable to a prosecution in the public sector for corporate manslaughter. In respect of this Bill, the maxim remains true that hard cases make bad law—and that includes cases that are hard for the Government, just as it includes cases that are hard for everyone else.
	I shall explain why such exemptions are needless. There seems to be insufficient trust in two important bodies in the criminal justice system. One is the CPS, on which we rely to choose which cases should be prosecuted and which should not, and the second, which is more important in many ways, consists of juries. We can rely, and we have relied, on juries to make a distinction between cases that genuinely involve corporate manslaughter on the basis of gross negligence and those that do not.
	At this point, I, too, should declare an interest: as a barrister, I have had quite a bit to do with juries in my time, and my judgment is that, generally speaking, juries exercise common sense and good judgment, and can tell the difference between what is gross negligence manslaughter and what is not. However, the Government have not given juries the opportunity to do so in relation to a vast swathe of public sector activity, and we should give them that opportunity.
	The Government fear that the result will be convictions for gross negligence manslaughter in cases where, for example, the police are involved in a counter-terrorist activity, the emergency services are involved in a rescue or the armed forces are operating in a military situation. I do not believe that juries, properly directed by the judge, will reach those conclusions. So I think that we ought to trust juries, because that will enable us, as a legislature, to present the public at large, who, as other hon. Members have observed, have waited a very long time, with legislation that is fair and equitable across the board, and does not make exceptions where they should not be made.
	Of course I accept that exceptions should be made in some cases—military operations in the theatre of conflict are a perfectly good example—but the exemptions in the Bill are too wide. The military exemptions do not just cover operations in the theatre of conflict. They could be interpreted to cover even basic training. That is too wide, and there is no reason why the Government should be concerned about narrowing those exemptions. I firmly believe, based on my experience, that juries are unlikely to reach the wrong conclusions in such cases.
	I should like the Bill to be improved. I believe that its principles, aims and objectives are worth while, but it is not the Bill that it should be. It is not the Bill for which thousands of families across the country have waited so long, and it is not the Bill that they deserve, because it appears not to level the playing field between the public and private sectors, although it could do so far more effectively. It is crucial to ensure that the Government—the state—legislates for everyone, not just for everyone else. That is why the Bill needs to be improved. I hope that during its passage through the House it will be improved, and that we will produce the legislation for which we have all been waiting for a very long time.

Ian Stewart: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, because health and safety at work is a matter in which I have a personal interest and a union concern, as a life-long member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I believe the proposals before us represent a significant step forward. The Government propose to prosecute companies whose gross negligence leads to the death of employees or members of the public. If a company is found guilty of corporate manslaughter, the penalty will be an unlimited fine and a possible remedial order to address the cause of the fatality. Those provisions will cover most public sector and voluntary organisations. That is an extremely important change, but I hope that the Government will be persuaded to be bolder still and incorporate in the Bill measures regarding directors' duties and custodial sentences for those found guilty of corporate manslaughter.
	I will admit that, as a newly elected MP, when the then Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—announced at a Labour party conference that Labour would introduce corporate manslaughter legislation in October 1997, I was expecting the conventional nine-month gestation period before the delivery of the commitment, not the nine years that have come to pass.
	Like many colleagues here, over the past nine years, I have regularly raised the matter in the House and written to Ministers, calling for the inclusion of corporate manslaughter in the next Queen's Speech, and the next Queen's Speech, and so on. So, today, I should like to place on record my appreciation for the work done by two ex-Members who are no longer full-time politicians, the first of whom is Ross Cranston, who introduced the Company Directors (Health and Safety) Bill in 2003, and the second of whom is Lawrie Quinn, who introduced the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill. Both men championed this cause with passion, skill and persistence.
	We all accept that the key focus of policy regarding health and safety at work must be on the prevention of accidents and fatalities at work. The development of trade union health and safety representatives, working co-operatively and constructively with management, has a significant role to play in the workplace. Labour has long argued that being green is good for business—I note that the Conservatives have now joined us on that. We also say that good safety is good for business because it is an investment in a company's most important resource—its work force. I look forward to support for that from Conservative Members today.
	Some of the key figures show the extent of the problem that we face. In 2005, 212 workers were killed in work-related accidents. As data from the Health and Safety Executive reveal, the deterrents in place under existing health and safety legislation are, in my view, woefully inadequate. For example, in 2003-04, the average fine for a company where health and safety offences resulted in a death was just over £43,000. The average fine for health and safety breaches by individual managers and directors was just about £3,300 for each offence. It cannot be argued with any credibility that the current rules act as a deterrent.
	I am sure that many Members have been supplied with tragic examples of death at work. One such example brought to my attention was that of a 15-year-old boy who died after being caught in a crushing machine, while working at a waste-recycling site in 2001. In the court case that followed, it was revealed that the crushing machine had been left ticking over, while a blockage was removed, when it should have been switched off. Furthermore, the protective guards that should have prevented workers from climbing on to the machinery had been removed. The company was fined £32,000 for breaching health and safety law. The boy lost his life. No directing mind and no company director was convicted of manslaughter.
	I understand that, according to the HSE, 70 per cent. of workplace fatalities are the result of management failures. It should be noted that only seven small companies have been prosecuted under the current legislation. It is unacceptable that we have seen 11 major national disasters from the King's Cross fire to the Potters Bar rail crash, resulting in about 671 deaths, and not one prosecution with a custodial sentence for corporate manslaughter under the current legislation. That is why we need effective corporate manslaughter legislation and why we welcome and must improve the Bill. I believe therefore that, when accidents happen, workers and indeed the public at large have a legitimate expectation that the company, in corporate terms, will be brought to account and that the consequences will be serious, not minor or trivial.
	In 2001, the former head of the CBI, Sir Digby Jones, said, when commenting on proposals put forward by the Health and Safety Commission as a draft code of practice, that he welcomed the elevation of this subject to the same level of consciousness in the boardroom as sales and finance. I hope that the Minister hears my point that Labour's legislation must ensure the same level of consciousness and, most important, the same level of responsibility.
	No individuals in a company are more important to ensuring safety in the workplace than directors. They decide the level of investment and priority given to health and safety. They decide whether their company is subject to proper health and safety audits and they encourage recognition of unsafe practices and their remedies. Other areas of legislation recognise the need to impose a custodial sentence, so this Bill must be seen to be closing an anomalous loophole or, more appropriately, putting a wrong right. I will return to that point later.
	I and my union, the TGWU, supported the Health and Safety (Directors' Duties) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) that sadly fell foul of the parliamentary timetable in 2005. The Bill sought to introduce positive health and safety obligations on directors. I believe a corporate manslaughter Bill will be fully effective only if there is also a specific duty on directors.
	I know that there are concerns about the definition of senior management in the Bill, a point that some of my colleagues have raised today. The definition raises some important questions. Will it include regional or sectoral managers if they do not play a significant role in the company? In large companies, will it be less likely that an individual manager will be deemed to play a significant role? Who is responsible when a large company subcontracts its work? All these matters need to be satisfactorily resolved.
	The other issue that I would like to address is that of penalties for flouting the proposed new law. I have considerable sympathy for those who argue that if directors can be given a custodial sentence for fraud or for breaking environmental or food safety laws, that should be an option for the punishment of corporate manslaughter. How can it be right that an identified director can receive a custodial sentence for fraud or the breach of environmental or food laws but, should the Bill become an Act of Parliament, no one is to be punished by custodial sentence when corporate manslaughter is proven and a human being has lost their life?
	I ask the Secretary of State to consider reviewing the liabilities test in the Bill. The weakness of this test has been part of the problem in getting convictions under the current law and it needs strengthening. Will he also look at the Canadian system of corporate probation and consider tabling amendments to include such provisions at a later stage in the Bill? I note that Families Against Corporate Killers, which has sent a briefing to all Members of Parliament, is calling for a voice in sentencing for the families of those involved in work-related deaths that is equal to the voice of families of other manslaughter or murder victims. That proposal merits serious consideration.
	If anyone is in any doubt that the Bill is needed as a priority, I ask them to look at the TUC research published last month that shows that nearly 4,500 young people are seriously injured or killed at work, which is 20 per cent. more than five years ago. One person under 25 dies every month in a workplace accident. We have a duty to offer the best protection to all workers but, for those who have a full working life ahead of them, our responsibilities are critical.

James Brokenshire: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) about the reasoned debate that we have had. We all share the concern to try to find a resolution to the problem and to make improvements to ensure that fatalities do not happen in the future and that people receive proper justice when incidents have unfortunately occurred and when culpability can be pointed in the direction of a particular corporate.
	The points that have arisen this evening are about how best we can achieve that and whether the Bill is able to seek the punishment of those responsible for deaths of members of the public and, most important, employees just going about their daily work. Will it be able to bring about a change in the culture and the mindset of companies and the directors of organisations to ensure that we have a step change in the climate and the approach governing health and safety so that accidents and incidents can be prevented in future? As other hon. Members have said, however, the Bill falls short in a number of respects. I note that this point was reflected fairly in the Home Secretary's speech, at least on one issue. I certainly look forward to seeing the amendments to judge the extent to which those concerns are adequately and properly addressed.
	The first issue I want to consider is that of identification and of how we move on from the current requirement in common law for a controlling or directing mind. My concern, as has been expressed by others, is that the Bill appears to exchange one identification test for another—that of the senior manager. The issue has been raised by stakeholders and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has said that the current wording
	"will have the effect of fatally undermining the Bill from the outset and will result in negligent companies and directors escaping punishment through technical defences. Victims' families will, once again, be denied the justice to which they are entitled."
	I note that the Home Secretary has said that this specific issue will be focused on, but we cannot lose sight of such a fundamental and trenchant criticism of the structure if we are to have a law that will help to provide the sense of justice that we want to achieve.
	On the concept of senior management and senior management failure, it is interesting to think what will happen in practice and what the courts will consider in testing that when this law comes before them. Travers Smith, a City law firm, said in one of its briefing notes:
	"This will be a question of fact and will vary from company to company. There are several hurdles in this definition. The term 'significant' is intended to capture only those whose role is decisive or influential. The reference to the company 'as a whole or a substantial part of it' means that divisional, regional or sectoral managers will only be caught if the operations for which they are responsible represent a substantial part of the company's operations as a whole. Clearly, the larger the organisation, the less likely it is that individual managers will be deemed to be responsible for a 'substantial' part of the activities of the organisation."
	In many ways, that builds on some of the comments from the hon. Member for Eccles. Clearly, the view that some lawyers seem to be forming is that if one is looking at large organisations, things will be much more difficult to pin down.
	Leading on from that is how companies operate and organise themselves. For example, there may be one very large corporate concern, but it is likely to have a holding company at the top, a plc, a listed company and, underneath that, lots of operating subsidiaries. I am not clear how the test will operate in that context. To use a lawyer's jargon, does it pierce the corporate veil or not? Ultimately, managers at a local level could be responding to directions or a general approach from a more senior aspect within the structure of the company, at the top. Is it possible to look up through the corporate structure to see who is ultimately responsible? Which corporate are we talking about? Is it the subsidiary, the intermediate holding company, the other intermediate holding company, or the top company? We need to be clear about the practical implications of how large organisations organise themselves. In many respects, one of the problems in the past has been that the existing manslaughter law seems to enable us to pin responsibility down in the case of small organisations, small companies and small businesses, where one can look at the structure that is in place, but perhaps not in the case of larger organisations, where, judging from the examples we have heard this afternoon, it has been difficult to establish that identification principle.

Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman articulates this complex issue well, but does he agree that, if it is possible in the case of fraud, for example, to make the link between the point of the problem and the controlling mind, that should also be possible under the Bill?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that, in many respects, cuts to the heart of the argument. One of the interesting things in the context of what the Bill provides is the interrelationship with existing health and safety legislation, where that personal liability exists. That connection between the two things concerns me in terms of ensuring that, if an action is brought against the corporate as a consequence of the Bill, that does not in some way cut across or undermine any other actions that might lie against the directors personally in the context of health and safety legislation. There is a clear interrelationship that we need to look at. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary and he seemed to say quite clearly, "No. You could have an action that would rely on this Bill and that would not impact on separate potential actions that could lie against managers or directors in relation to health and safety legislation." That is a key aspect. It is the connection between the two things that, for me, provides the solution. As the Bill proceeds, we need to test whether that works in practice.
	On the other aspects, we need to consider where we are in terms of whom one can bring the claim against. This evening, we have discussed the issue of Crown immunity and the waiver of Crown immunity in certain circumstances. However, that is hemmed in by various exemptions that appear to draw distinctions in relation to factors that appear to apply equally to private sector organisations, as well as public bodies. We heard a moving and clear example of that type of case from the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), who is no longer in his place. He talked about an investment that he said that Transco had not undertaken and said that that had resulted in lossof life.
	Clearly, the same arguments could be set out in relation to public bodies as well as private bodies. The Centre for Corporate Accountability, which has highlighted that as a concern or reservation, says:
	"It is important to note that such issues of resource allocation and competing interests are not unusual in the management of safety in commercial and industrial contexts—and so we do not accept that such a substantial exemption should be given to public bodies."
	It is its view that
	"this exclusion sends out entirely the wrong message to public bodies and the way in which they make decisions involving the safety of the public."
	We need to examine that further. There are issues in relation to the extent to which Crown immunity applies that are right and proper. Liberty has suggested that,
	"The Government seems to have drawn up a list of all the circumstance in which its gross negligence could cause death and has asked its lawyers to provide a get-out clause for every one of them."
	Although I understand the point that is being made in that quite direct assertion, I do not think that things have gone that far. However, we need to analyse carefully where exemption lies and whether it is right to draw a distinction between public authorities on the one hand and private concerns on the other. We should be trying to achieve justice for individuals, as well as ensuring that a climate of safety is promulgated and that fewer incidents occur.
	We need to effect this cultural change. In relation to the assessment of cost arising from the introduction of the Bill, it is interesting to note that it is suggested that the cost may not be that large. The explanatory notes on the financial effects of the Bill say that
	"because the offence is aimed at the sort of behaviour which would already be subject to prosecution (either under the existing law of corporate manslaughter or health and safety law), not all of the costs of"
	£2 million to £2.5 million, and court costs of£0.1 million to £0.2 million, are likely to be
	"in addition to costs currently incurred both by defendants and the Crown."
	The interesting point in that context is the extent to which we are facilitating change. There is the question whether the Bill will result in the step change that I have been talking about and whether it will ensure that we do not have further deaths, or that we limit the situation as much as possible by changing the sense of culture. We may run the risk of seeing companies or organisations that already comply either over-complying or being concerned about doing things that may well be lawful for them to do. But we may not necessarily get at those organisations that do not comply at all with health and safety legislation. In that respect, the Bill may not change that situation. It is a question of looking at enforcement and toughening up the regime for those who do not care about the application of existing health and safety law and therefore will probably ignore the Bill, however carefully we craft it and define it. But it is clear that the stated desire of providing
	"an added incentive to organisations with very poor safety standards to improve"
	is the right one; it is the one that we must look for.
	The Bill is complex. I should declare at this stage that I am a lawyer—a non-practising one, I hasten to add, so I do not have any direct personal interest in the outcome—and as a lawyer, I find the Bill complicated and difficult, which is why it has taken so long to get to this stage. That said, I welcome the fact that it has got this far and that we are putting this issue on the agenda.
	Ultimately, however, we have to go back to the fundamental starting point. I refer to article 2.1 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
	"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law."
	Protecting by law is our guiding principle, and I hope that the Bill will achieve that. At the moment, it does not, but I hope that, with the will of this House and through the changes made in Committee, we can create a statute that will fulfil the aspirations set out clearly by many Members in all parts of the House tonight, and that we provide a form of protection that provides justice, as well as improvements in health and safety.

Terry Rooney: I join in the general welcome for the Bill's publication, despite the fact that it has shortcomings. It is the 10th anniversary of the original Law Commission report and it is time that we had some progress.
	To put the issue in context, earlier today, I met a delegation of people from India who work in the ship-breaking industry, in which workers are extremely casualised. In India, they get a dollar a day in wages. They take approximately 100 tonnes of asbestos out of a ship with their bare hands, and they have no medical or physical protection. Some 9,000 people are dying each year. Sometimes, we need to reflect on just how far we in this country have progressed.
	Sadly, my co-Chairman on the Joint Committee that undertook the pre-legislative scrutiny, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), cannot be with us tonight because he is on jury service; there is an irony in that. But I am glad that, to judge by the comments made, virtually everybody has read the Committee's report. Several Members have misquoted it, but at least they read it in the first place, which is helpful. Despite the suggestion from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I welcome the Government's response, particularly on corporate culture, remedial orders and removing the profit multiplication factor, which was a negative aspect of the original Bill.
	I also welcome the Home Secretary's comments on the definition of "senior manager", which is an issue that we addressed at great length in our report. He said that he would write to Opposition Front Benchers, and I wonder whether he will extend that offer to members of the Joint Committee, because we took a great interest in that issue.

Stewart Hosie: The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), mentioned Scotland in his speech. It is worth reminding the House how Scotland ended up being in the scope of the Bill. The Centre for Corporate Accountability, which other hon. Members have mentioned, summed up the position rather well:
	"Ever since the Law Commission first discussed reform of the law of manslaughter in 1994, it has always been assumed that there would...be separate legislation for Scotland. The sudden decision to include Scotland in this Bill"—
	the Bill before the House today—
	"raises the question of how the Westminster Parliament can now legislate on corporate homicide, clearly a criminal law issue, where Scotland has long had separate laws and process from England and Wales. For this reason, CCA questions the soundness of the decision to include Scotland in the scope of the Bill."
	Let me recap the chronology up to the present point. In 2005, the Scottish Executive published a report on corporate homicide by their expert group. The report was welcomed by the Labour-Liberal Executive and by the whole Scottish Parliament, yet the Executive took no action themselves. Instead, they deferred to the UK Government in support of the then draft Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, which did not amend Scottish common law.
	In June this year, the Labour MSP Karen Gillon introduced, with all-party support, the Culpable Homicide (Scotland) Bill, which set out the criteria by which an individual may be guilty of culpable homicide, what offences were considered to constitute culpable homicide and how an organisation may be held liable for those offences. She revised the Bill in early September, but then withdrew it on 29 September, only a short time ago.
	It is worth pointing out that the Scottish Bill enjoyed extensive support among unions in Scotland and in the rest of the UK. At that time, they felt that the Bill before us—referred to as "the English Bill"—did not go far enough in creating a deterrent against endangering workers and citizens alike. Indeed, the Transport and General Workers Union, to which a number of Labour Members have referred, says that it
	"firmly believes that the Scottish Parliament should support legislation which will hold negligent employers and the individuals who hide behind the corporate veil to account."
	However, we are where we are, and this is not a Scottish criminal Bill, but a UK health and safety Bill. I have listened to all the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, and although there is unhappiness about some of the wording, there is genuine relief that we have something with which to work.
	There are concerns that are common to Members on both sides of the Chamber. One is the lack of personal liability—the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) made that point best. Other Members spoke about the difference between private organisations and some public bodies. There is the issue of the legal arguments about the fact that there is still a requirement for a duty of care. The hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) put it best when he described the inconsistency whereby individual directors were charged, prosecuted and convicted under certain claims, but not under corporate homicide, when the death of an individual or individuals occurred.
	I shall briefly discuss the Scottish position, before commenting on the issue of senior managers, as I suspect that that will form the basis of the most significant debates in Committee and on Report. In Scotland, it is possible to convict a company of a common law crime if the prosecution can identify an individual or a group of individuals who were the "controlling mind" of a company—that is, whose acts and state of mind could be said to be that of the company itself—and who were guilty of that crime.
	The new Bill certainly removes the need to prosecute an individual before prosecuting an organisation, which is welcome, and it bases an offence on the way in which organisations are managed and organised. However, for the new offence to be committed, it is not sufficient that the death was caused by a gross breach in the way in which an organisation was organised and managed; the failure must have been, or must be, at a senior manager level. The senior manager is defined as a person who
	"plays a significant role in...the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of"
	the organisation's
	"activities are to be managed or organised, or...the actual management or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities."
	In effect, that means that under the Bill only failures made by the most senior managers of a company would result in a company being prosecuted for corporate homicide. It means, too, that however serious the failures outside the management circle, the company may well escape prosecution under the legislation. That poses a danger because, while small and family businesses, and businesses with simple management structures, may be easily subject to the new law, as they were with previous measures, large companies with complicated management structures may well escape prosecution. Actions taken on their behalf by junior managers—perhaps by foremen, particularly on building sites—that lead to the death of individuals could result in a company escaping prosecution.

Frank Doran: This Bill has been a long time coming, as many of my hon. Friends and other Members have said. I am sure that it is clear to the Minister that it does not meet the aspirations of many of us who have argued over many years for the creation of a statutory offence of corporate killing. For all that, I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. It is important that we have established the principle and can move on from there.
	For many of us who speak in today's debate, this is not just an intellectual or even ideological issue. Our motivation comes from practical experience, as was well exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood). In my case, as a young solicitor in the north-east of Scotland, I dealt with many personal injury cases, a high proportion of which came from the North sea oil and gas industry. I remember one particular case in which an oil worker had been seriously injured on a drill floor. The circumstances of the case and the way in which he was treated after the incident were horrifying but not unusual. I was negotiating damages on the worker's behalf with a representative of an American insurance company. After we had gone through the nitty-gritty of the case and done our bargaining, I asked him why his company tolerated its client's behaviour and the lack of a proper safety system. His response was fairly blunt and shocking. He told me that it was cheaper for oil companies to pay out higher premiums than it was to stop production or to interfere with processes.
	I am glad to say that that situation has changed. That incident happened at a time when the North sea oil and gas industry was being opened up and there was a Klondike mentality. The consequences were obvious in the number of serious injuries and deaths but, while the deaths were limited to individual incidents, the lack of a safety culture was tolerated, not only by the insurance companies and their clients but by the then Government.
	My second practical lesson concerned the inevitable consequence of that lack of safety culture: a major disaster in the North sea. In July 1988, the Piper Alpha oil production platform exploded and 167 men were killed. That is still the worst ever disaster in the oil and gas industry anywhere in the world. The then Government ordered an inquiry under Lord Cullen. As expected, he discovered a very poor safety culture and his detailed report showed failings around a wide range of operations and functions on the platform.
	When I look back at that difficult period in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, I can remember that many people in the oil and gas industry were stunned that the platforms that they had built—even one on the scale of Piper—were not capable of withstanding an explosion. What is more shocking now than anything else, though, is the complete lack of surprise that we all had about just how poor safety in the North sea oil and gas industry was. It was common currency that the disaster could have happened on any one of a number of platforms. I think that we all just accepted that it came with the territory.
	It was not only the operating company, Occidental, that was at fault. The Cullen report revealed that, in June 1987, a year before the disaster, there had been a fatality on Piper Alpha. Department of Energy inspectors—the inspectorate at the time—inspected the platform and pointed out a catalogue of deficiencies. In June 1988, they inspected it again to follow up their original inspection. It is clear from Lord Cullen's report that none of the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier inspections, which had led to the death of a worker, had been remedied and that there had been no improvement. Less than a month after that last inspection, Piper Alpha exploded.
	There were serious failings in the operator safety systems and even more serious failings in the Department of Energy and the regulators' inspections. There should have been prosecutions for corporate killing against the oil company operators and against the Department of Energy. The Lord Advocate of Scotland decided not to prosecute Occidental and there was no possibility of a prosecution against the Department of Energy because of Crown immunity. Both could have been prosecuted under the Bill. It is welcome to remedy those failures alone, particularly in the sense that it removes Crown immunity, in circumstances that are of course limited, but important.
	I should like to refer to several points of detail. Some have already been mentioned and I shall rattle through them fairly quickly. Mindful of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), I welcome the fact that we have a UK Bill that recognises that there are different legal systems that provide a common set of principles and approach. Company law, employment law and health and safety at work law operate across the whole of the UK, and that approach allows us to have some consistency. There are points of detail relating to the Scottish legal system that will have to be addressed and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with them in Committee.
	On senior managers, I welcome the comments that the Home Secretary made earlier and hope that the Government will be able to deal with the many points that have been raised on this issue on both sides of the House. The last thing that we want is a Bill that provides loopholes to companies that will make it even more difficult to get a prosecution. This is an important issue, and I look forward to hearing the results of the Minister's deliberations.
	The most difficult issue, and probably the most contentious, is that of individual liability. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary earlier and I accept that it is important to focus on corporate responsibility. However, I find it difficult to understand why the Bill is drafted as it is, when individual directors and managers can be prosecuted under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in circumstances in which corporate responsibility is also relevant. It is important that Ministers should listen to the strong points that have been raised on this issue today.
	There is also the question of the extent of liability and the exclusion of non-incorporated bodies and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) wants to make an issue of that in relation to the difference between partnership law in Scotland and England. That provision creates a particular problem, because the building and construction industry has one of the highest rates of industrial injuries and deaths, and a large proportion of the contractors and sub-contractors in that industry are not incorporated bodies. We must look at the issue very carefully.
	The Bill provides for only two penalties: fines and remedial orders. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister expects clause 10 to operate in this respect. It is unfortunate that the Government have not taken the opportunity to be more imaginative in regard to the way in which penalties could be applied. I know that representations have been made by the TUC, among others, about extending the range of penalties available. For example, it has proposed a penalty of corporate probation, which is quite a novel idea that I had not heard of before the TUC raised it with me. I have now been given an extremely interesting paper on it. The disqualification of directors, among other measures, could also provide incentives to ensure that companies take the legislation seriously and make a real commitment to improving their safety culture.
	I think that I am the only person to raise this next issue. I practised law for the last time nearly 20 years ago, so I am rusty, but I was a wee bit worried when I read clause 22(2), which provides:
	"Section 1 does not apply in relation to anything done or omitted before the commencement of that section."
	I understand the principle that legislation should not be retrospective. However, that subsection seems to provide a defence to a company that had procedures in place before the commencement of the Act that resulted in the death of one of its employees after its commencement. I might be misreading that provision—as I said, I am very rusty in the legal area—but I hope that a court would not use it as a basis on which to acquit if a company had done nothing since the establishment of its procedures until the death of the worker in those circumstances. If there is a fundamental weakness in a safety system, or a decision that leads to a death, that is a continuing matter until it is changed or until there are consequences. I would not want to rely on the ingenuity of the judiciary to make that decision for me and I would be grateful if the Minister could examine that subsection again.
	For many of us who have had experience of a death at work caused by criminal negligence, including the families and survivor friends, there is a great deal of unfinished business. We cannot turn back the clock, but the Bill will help many people to find some closure and I support it wholeheartedly.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my support for the Bill, so far as it goes. As we have heard many times today, we have waited for a long time for the Bill. Many on this side of the House and in the wider Labour and trade union movement—as well as those who have been directly affected by incidents, particularly in the workplace—have campaigned long and hard for legislation that will protect all those in the workplace. We wanted a Bill that would cover all employing organisations, whether public, private, voluntary, incorporated or unincorporated, and the individuals who own and manage them. The Bill must hold all of them accountable under the law.
	Clearly the Bill in its current form does not go as far as that. We have heard many times from Members on both sides of the House about how it could be improved to provide more protection for more people. The reality is that the Bill will help some people.
	We heard a number of powerful examples from hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran), of situations where the Bill might provide great assistance. We know that, every year, more than 100 people die in the workplace. Last year, 384 members of the public died in the workplace as a result of negligent employers. We know that 1,000 other people died in road traffic incidents related to the workplace. Many other incidents are not recorded, including incidents that happen at sea but not logged.
	We are told that 70 per cent. of those incidents result from health and safety failures and negligence by management. We are aware of the scale of the problem and of the human tragedies that are involved. A constituent came to me because her 37-year-old son was killed last year in a workplace incident. She said that it was "a mother's worst nightmare." Her son was incinerated at work as a result of failures in health and safety in the workplace as well as failures in legal practices. That was also a tragedy for his wife and two young children.
	The reality is that many of those affected are young people and they are most at risk, which makes it an even greater tragedy if there is an incident. It is vital that we make sure that we have a legal regime that provides effective sanctions to ensure that management are not willing to take risks with the health and safety of their employees. We know that we do not have that now and we know that Scottish law on culpable homicide and English law on gross negligence and manslaughter have been completely inadequate to deal with those issues. I thus ask the Minister to look again at the legislation and perhaps to reflect on finding other ways of dealing with these problems.
	Many hon. Members have expressed strong views about the need for individual directors to have individual responsibility and to be liable for any lapses in their legal responsibility for health and safety at work. I ask Ministers to take the strength of those views into account and to reflect further on the Bill. Labour Members are certainly well aware of the strength of feeling on this issue up and down the country. We saw it at the Trades Union Congress last month, when policy decisions were taken to seek to strengthen the Bill and we saw it overwhelmingly again at the Labour party conference, where the importance of effective individual sanctions and the responsibility of directors was emphasised. As we move through the process, I hope that those issues will be looked at again, so that we move forward from what is already good legislation to make it even more effective in certain circumstances. We want to ensure that the legislation is even better, dealing with a far wider range of circumstances.
	The reality is that hundreds of people are affected every year. Some cases may not be preventable, but the cases that we are talking about—cases of gross negligence, for example—are avoidable and preventable. Those cases should be subject to the criminal law and the individuals affected should get justice in the same way that others who have crimes committed against them get access to the justice system.

Ann McKechin: Like several of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill. I also agree with some of the comments that have been made about the senior management test, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated that he is prepared to reconsider the issue. The issues of penalties and corporate probation periods are also important.
	I shall concentrate on the issues pertaining to Scots law. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, the addition of Scotland to the Bill was a last minute call. As a result, Scotland has not benefited from the wide consultation on the Bill that has happened in England and Wales or the scrutiny of the Select Committee. That places a greater onus on the Government to try as hard as possible to ensure that the Bill works for Scotland as much as it does for the rest of the United Kingdom.
	I say that because the Stockline factory explosion occurred two and a half years ago in my constituency, killing nine people. As many other hon. Members have mentioned today, the human cost of death at work affects so many families in this country. In the past 10 years, the rate of fatal injury in Scotland has, with the exception of only one year, remained significantly higher than that in the UK as a whole. Similar differences are evident in the figures for major injuries.
	Scotland has a different legal environment for enforcement. Prosecutions must be made through the Procurator Fiscal Service rather than taken directly to court by the Health and Safety Executive. The Procurator Fiscal Office faces great challenges in its work load and it is perhaps unsurprising that few members have great experience in the health and safety aspect of the law.
	Sadly, the courts in Scotland tend to fine much lower amounts than those in the rest of the UK. In 2004-05, the average fine per conviction was £4,846—a decrease on the previous year of £8,191. We need a much better partnership between the Health and Safety Executive, the Procurator Fiscal Service and judges if we are to stop being the poor relation in the UK when it comes to health and safety.
	That is why I accept that Scotland cannot afford to lag behind the rest of the UK and why we should have legislation that covers the whole of the UK. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) earlier, there is a fundamental difference in the common law position.
	The purpose of the Bill, as stated on page 3 of the explanatory notes, is to try to cover the
	"key aspects of the current common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland".
	It is trying to create equivalence in the law, regardless of the legal structure of the body that causes the death.
	That follows the common law definition of manslaughter by gross negligence in the Adomako case in 1997. It based its description on the civil law interpretation of a breach of a duty of care. However, the definition is the exact opposite in Scotland, where, in the Transco case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) mentioned, Lord Osbourne commented:
	"However, it is quite clear to me that the two definitions are fundamentally different...The Scottish definition contains no counterpart".
	If the Bill is enacted, it would not provide equivalence for Scotland but create a definition of a crime that would apply only to corporations and specific Crown bodies and not to individuals and other organisations that the measure does not cover. I do not propose that the Home Office start interfering with Scots criminal law—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can rest assured about that—but I hope that he will engage in urgent consultation with the Scottish Executive as well as specific institutions such as the Scottish Law Commission on the best legislative route to ensure coherence for the victims of the crimes that we are considering.
	Partnerships are excluded from the Bill on the basis that, in England, they are not a separate legal entity. However, the opposite is the case in Scotland. Partnerships are a separate legal entity and it could be argued that it would be logical to include them inthe Bill.
	Pages 25 and 26 of the Joint Committee report recommended that the Government provide certainty on the law of causation by including the Law Commission's original provision in the Bill. The Government rejected that, based on several recent English legal cases, on page 8 of their response. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Department has taken specific advice on the matter as it relates to Scots law? If so, what were the conclusions?
	Clause 16 refers to prosecutions only by the public authorities, but for some odd reason, it does not refer to Scotland and I therefore presume that private prosecutions in Scotland would be permitted under the Bill as it stands. Special constables are covered in only England and Wales. I am sure that we shall try to iron out those points in Committee.
	Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. More needs to be done to strengthen it to ensure that it works and I look forward such progress in Committee.

Joan Humble: It is with great pleasure that I welcome the Bill as the fulfilment of a manifesto pledge and an indication that the Government intend further to extend the protection of its citizens and the recognition of human rights. The Bill is broadly supported—although with some caveats—by the trade union movement. I am a member of the Transport and General Workers union and refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I shall not repeat the wide-ranging comments made by earlier speakers. I agree entirely with their emphasis that we should do everything possible to avoid the ghastly tragedies of the past. This is our opportunity to do so.
	I want to focus narrowly on how the Bill will affect members of our armed forces. I am chair of the all-party army deaths group, which focuses on peacetime non-combat deaths. It also helps to support the Deepcut and Beyond families group in drawing attention to their needs and campaigning for truth, justice and change.
	I pay tribute to the Government for avoiding the easy option of allowing Crown immunity to remain and for ensuring that the protection of the legislation will be available to members of the armed forces and individuals who suffer through unlawful actions. The Bill provides further recognition that human rights do not stop at the factory gate, the entrance to the barracks or the gangway of the naval vessel.
	The Bill would benefit from clarification and strengthening in several respects. First, the law should be fair to those who may be charged with offences under its provisions, but it must also be robust, to enable enforcement agencies to hold to account those responsible for the offences.
	Secondly, with special regard to the armed forces, we must ensure that the curtain of military silence and cap-badge loyalty that falls over fatal incidents cannot be a barrier to effective investigation. We need to ensure that the soldier who speaks out is protected. The whistleblower plays a vital role in the prevention of all corporate crime.
	Thirdly, we need to recognise the right of victims and to give bereaved families a clearer role in the process. Victims have a right to expect justice. We should be looking for ways in which their involvement and participation in the investigation and prosecution may be enhanced. The involvement of bereaved families would serve the interests of justice and assist the effective prosecution of offenders.
	I have set out my hopes for the Bill, but I have concerns, which have been expressed by other hon. Members, about the possible exemptions created for activities that are not a "relevant duty of care". As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I note the concern expressed in the joint report on the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill that preparation for combat operations might encompass routine training. I note especially that, in response to recommendation 37, the Government said that they would provide further clarification. In fact, the Bill extends the exemptions to include training of a hazardous nature.
	All hon. Members recognise that the military are in a unique situation. Of course, combat must not be included in the Bill's parameters, but other areas should be included. I should like the Minister to clarify exactly how the Bill will help members of the armed forces to find redress if they are asked to carry out tasks that are unnecessarily hazardous and have no reasonable military purpose, yet are stated by the military command to be in preparation for an operation.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of research by Dr. Alan Porter into exertional heat illness. For the record, the reference is Porter AMW, "Collapse from Exertional Heat Illness: implications and subsequent decisions". He has spent 15 years researching that illness, yet soldiers still die from it and he cannot find any example of where the activities involved have been of any use whatever in any campaign. That is exactly the sort of issue that needs to be addressed.
	If the Government insist on including acts of preparation as an exemption under the law, can they define how far back in time or the line of causation that preparation can stretch? In May 2003, a soldier who was previously stationed at Catterick barracks died while loading tanks bound for transport by sea to Iraq. Would such activities be considered part of combat operations? Will people in garages on military bases not be included in the legislation?
	There has been some discussion about whether the Bill should apply overseas. Will it extend to military barracks overseas? Again, there have been such deaths overseas: 20-year-old Private David Shipley died in Germany in 2002, as a result of drowning in a pool that should have been emptied. The English coroner remarked that the account of Army witnesses "bore all the hallmarks of a concocted story". The jury's verdict was one of unlawful killing.
	I could give many more examples of unfortunate deaths that have involved coroners' inquests and where serious doubts have been expressed about what happened. Coroners and the Health and Safety Executive have found—for example, in the case of Corporal Jason Pears—that there was a corporate responsibility behind such deaths, yet no one has been prosecuted. We cannot continue to allow that to happen. The Bill gives us the opportunity to address the concerns of Army families throughout the country, where there is a clear indication of corporate responsibility in such deaths, and I look forward to the successful passage of this legislation.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) was the 20th contributor to the debate, and the House can congratulate itself on that. We started late, for perfectly understandable reasons, but I will be the 21st and the Minister will be the 22nd contributor. The debate has been good-tempered and well informed, and the House should also congratulate itself on that. I hope that I do not take us off that line as I sum up on behalf of the official Opposition.
	As everyone has said, this Bill is hugely well intentioned. There cannot be anyone in the House who wants to see people being killed at work, and there cannot be anyone who runs a company, undertaking or public service who goes into work saying that he or she looks forward to increasing the number of avoidable fatalities at work. We come at this issue by agreeing that 212 deaths—or whatever the figure may be—are too many and that it is worth attempting to do what we can to reduce the number.
	The Bill has been questioned or welcomed in a guarded fashion by Members on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) succinctly pointed out, it will have to stand comparison with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 despite the concerns about individual prosecutions and the fact mentioned by Members on both sides that the average penalty has been small in relation to the hideous consequences of an accident or gross negligence that causes death.
	I fear that the Bill may not do what we want it do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, this is a complex area of law and the fact that it is complex means that things may need to be improved over time, or that there are issues that the Select Committees dealing with the work of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office or the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), might wish to consider once the Bill becomes law.
	Whichever side of the House we sit, and whatever our professional or other background, there is a consensus that we need somehow or other to engender a culture in the workplace so that managers and employees feel safe and can go to work knowing that if something goes wrong, a system is in place that will provide justice for their families.
	I appreciate the perfectly natural and human desire that we all share. Several hon. Members have mentioned constituency cases. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) mentioned the Larkhall gas disaster, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) referred to Piper Alpha, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere mentioned the Potters Bar railway crash in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Hendon referred to the King's Cross disaster, which affected him as a practising solicitor. Members have been able to draw on their personal or constituency experiences to the benefit of the debate, and they have reflected the public's need to see somebody held responsible for terrible accidents.
	Some of those accidents have led to the deaths of perhaps one or two people, and some, like the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge, which was mentioned by one of the Labour Members with shipping or maritime experience— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) is not in his place at the moment. In the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, as in King's Cross and some of the other railway disasters, huge numbers of people lost their lives. So, what do we do about that? What do we do that is sensible and practical?
	Of course, every fatality is a terrible thing for the family involved. For example, most people who have had a loved one killed in a car accident, as a result of careless driving or of someone at the wheel being well over the limit, want something to mark the appalling tragedy that has hit their family. Often the victims' families leave court feeling that they have not had their genuine concerns assuaged. Parliament must do what is right, of course, but it must also limit itself to doing what is possible. We must not over-promise and we must not increase expectations to a level at which they cannot be met, and thus decrease public confidence in the justice system or the law-making system as a whole.
	As people have discussed the Bill, concerns have been expressed about the meaning of "senior manager" and about the decision by the Government to give the judge the power to decide whether the relevant duty of care exists in a particular case. Concerns have been expressed about the way in which Crown immunity should touch on the armed forces and the emergency services. There have been some interesting discussions about the way in which the penalties and the remedies that the Bill provides should operate. There is room, certainly under the clause 10 remedies, for some quite imaginative thinking. There was concern, for example, that company directors could not be disqualified under the Bill. Well, who knows? Perhaps a thoughtful Minister at the Home Office might come up with a draft set of guidelines that would, for example, lead to amendments to the Bill that would allow for one of the remedies to be that a particular individual should no longer be allowed to serve as a company director, either for ever or for some period of time. The Committee ought to focus its mind on that sort of thing. I am sure that the Government, with all the assistance that they have at their disposal, will be willing to consider that.
	I dare say that the Home Secretary, in his opening remarks, did not display his usual mastery of his brief. He may have been distracted by what was going on in the other place, where I fear the Government suffered a serious defeat on the proposal to abolish the prisons inspectorate. However, he was able to take on board the fact that there is an area of concern about the liability of unincorporated bodies. We may well see more of that in Committee.
	I have only a very little time left to sum up, which I do not mind at all because that has made it possible for 20 speakers to get in ahead of me. I am pleased to say that during the debate broad themes have emerged. First, there is the need for the Bill to work. Secondly, there is the need for the Bill to have UK applicability. That point has been made by Scottish Members, as well as English Members. There is also a need to make sure that the remedies and the penalties fit the crime. Above all, we want to ensure that when the Bill comes into law, as it no doubt will, it does so in a fashion that does not allow anybody to say that it was but a gesture Bill that was not designed to improve, or to change the culture of, safety in the workplace, and that the only important bit about it was its name.
	The words "corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide" ring loudly across this Chamber, but we need to be sure that the Bill's title is not the best part of it. It is the guts of it—the body—that is so important, and this Parliament, including the Standing Committee, need to concentrate very carefully on the detail of these proposals. A Bill that sounds good but does no good is no Bill at all.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that there are issues that we need to debate further, and I look forward to discussing them in greater detail in Committee.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he outlined the Bill this afternoon, there are differences between us, but we should not lose sight of the nature of what we are trying to achieve in respect of corporate manslaughter. The Bill builds on the health and safety legislation that Labour Governments have introduced over many years, and which we are very proud of, particularly the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
	The Bill is a short one but as we have heard today, the debate that it has generated is not without contention; there are complex issues that we have to face. However, there is no real argument as to whether the current law of corporate manslaughter is working: it clearly is not. It does not provide justice and it does not apply fairly to organisations. As has been said, this is about trying to bring about a culture change within organisations.
	As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, the winding-up time has been limited because of the need to ensure that Members were able to contribute to the debate. Many issues have been raised and I shall try to deal with as many as possible; I shall write to Members on those that I am unable to deal with. As the Home Secretary said, we will let Members know about the amendments that we want make, particularly on the liability test.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) expressed the concern that the Bill might not add anything to the existing health and safety legislation. For the families of those killed through the abject failure of organisations to meet their health and safety responsibilities, the Bill is far from pointless. It is important that culpable behaviour be properly labelled, especially to the relatives of those who have died.
	Several Members raised the question of individual liability. In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser), my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may at one point have suggested that the Bill might deal with this issue, but he was then very clear and at pains to say that it does not.
	The problem with the law is that corporate liability is contingent on individual liability. That does not work because the nature of decision making in complex organisations is such that responsibility can rarely be laid at the door of a specific individual, which has made it difficult to prosecute large organisations for manslaughter. The Bill tackles that specific problem. It establishes a new basis for liability that shifts the focus from the conduct of individuals and places it on the management of systems and processes. The Bill is concerned with creating an effective corporate offence, not individual liability.
	We have heard concern from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the senior manager test. We have taken seriously the points made about the test during consultation on and scrutiny of the draft Bill. Our intention is to make corporations liable when the organisation as a whole has utterly inadequate practices or systems for managing health and safety. We introduced the concept of failure at a senior level to provide reassurance and clarity on the fact that the offence should not capture failures at just a juniorlevel. The measure was widely misinterpreted as reintroducing a form of liability that was reliant on finding individuals who could be taken to represent an organisation guilty of manslaughter.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we will bring forward a new test in Committee that will achieve our aims in a way that does not risk the reintroduction of an identification obstacle. We will make the amendment available to the Chairs of the Work and Pensions Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which have played a crucial and central part in what we have tried to achieve with the Bill.
	Our debate also touched on the position of public bodies and activities not covered by the Bill. It is quite wrong to say that the way in which we have approached this effectively brings Crown immunity in through the back door. The existing law of corporate manslaughter has no application to the Crown at all. We have lifted Crown immunity for the new offence because the Government believe that it is right that the offence applies equally to the public and private sectors when they are engaged in similar activities. It is right that Crown workers are protected by the Bill.
	The Bill comprehensively covers the Crown's duties to provide safe systems of work for employees and in the workplace. Enabling the judicial scrutiny of breaches of those duties in the context of manslaughter is an unprecedented step. This is not about applying criminal law to the way in which core Government or public functions are carried out. Carrying out such functions involves fundamental public matters, such as the allocation of limited public resources and protecting the public from harm that is often created by others.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked whether public and private prisons would be treated differently. As far as the Bill is concerned, they are both in for employer duties and the safety of premises, but they will both be out for dealings related to operational prison activities.
	The debate also touched on deaths in custody and the police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that there are independent inspectorates: the police have the Independent Police Complaints Commission and we also have the police and probations ombudsman.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the report of which came out this morning. We will have to take some time to consider the issues raised by the Committee, but we will examine them closely. We believe that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights, but we will read in great detail what has been said.
	The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked whether 10 to 13 cases would be enough. That is not a limit, but what we suspect that the number of cases will be. Several hon. Members asked about the Macrory report, which is about corporate sanctions, rather than duties on directors. In Committee, we need to examine the duty of care, directors' duties and disqualification. However, we believe that they are all affected by other aspects of Government policy, notably the Companies Bill and issues affecting the Department for Work and Pensions. I hope that we have given clarification on points raised about Scotland.
	The UK has a safety record of which it can be proud, but too many people are dying at work. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, you and many hundreds of us attended a memorial service for our good friend Mr. Eric Forth. Is there in any way in which Standing Orders allow us to have put into  Hansard tomorrow that, had Mr. Forth been here tonight, he would have opposed both of those procedural motions, because they were things that he hated?

Helen Jones: In 1998, this Government became the first to take the needs of carers seriously when they established the national carers' strategy to look across government at the needs of carers and to recognise the enormous contribution that they make to their families and to society as a whole. Since then, much has been achieved, which I want to recognise and applaud before I go any further. The carer's premium, for instance, has increased from £12 to £25.80 a week and the carers' grant to local authorities to provide additional breaks for carers, which was £20 million when it was introduced in 1999, went up last year to £285 million. The state second pension will enable carers to build up pension credit of their own over time. All that is good and valuable, as is the support that the Government gave to the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004 and the decision to introduce into the Work and Families Act 2006 the right to flexible working for carers.
	While we recognise the progress made, we all have to be honest and say that we need to go further. We need to do so not only for the sake of carers, but for ourselves, because the changing needs of our economy and the skills shortages that we will face in future mean that we are going to need carers who are able to combine their caring with paid work. Now that the Government have given carers many more rights at work, our task is to ensure that they can exercise them for the benefit of themselves, their families and society as a whole.
	All the indications are that many carers wish to combine their caring with paid work. In fact, 80 per cent. of carers are of working age and they already form 12 per cent. of the work force. If they are to exercise their rights successfully, it is important that they are not driven out of the work force because they cannot receive the support that they need or because it becomes financially unviable for them to work. In order to ensure that that does not happen, we need to achieve two things. We need to look carefully into the support available to carers and into how the carer's allowance currently operates. That is what I shall concentrate on tonight.
	Very few carers' assessments even now ask about their wish to work or their current job. Although the 2004 Act ought to change that, the cultural shift is taking a very long time to come about. In addition, I believe that the carer's allowance as currently constituted leads to real injustice and amounts to a massive disincentive to work. At £46.95 a week, it is already the lowest income replacement benefit and it is for a minimum of 35 hours of caring. Because of the rule that one must not be gainfully employed, once one earns more than £84, the allowance stops. There is no taper; it is a complete cut-off.
	In providing an example of what that leads to, I cite the case of Mrs. Lesley Jarvis. She was one of the carers that I was privileged to meet on the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers carers' day last June. I really mean that it was a privilege, which will become apparent when we understand what Mrs. Jarvis does. Her husband had a massive stroke and needs 24-hour care. Her family helps to care for him during the day, but she looks after him during the evenings and at weekends. That allows her to work, but by making the huge effort to keep herself in employment, she earns too much to qualify for carer's allowance. Mrs. Jarvis works in retail, which is a euphemism for not being paid very much. In terms of the carer's allowance, too much need not be very much at all.
	Another case cited by USDAW is of a gentleman who gave up work to care for his mother. He now works from 7 am to 1 pm and cares for his mother until 7 pm each evening and at weekends. He earns £150. In effect, with both his caring and paid work, he works12 hours a day, seven days a week, for £150. That is intolerable in a strong economy in the 21st century. It is even more scandalous when we realise how much carers save the economy. They do not do it for that reason—they do it for love—but it is undoubtedly true that their unpaid caring saves us an extraordinary amount of money.
	It costs a minimum of £377 a week to keep someone in a local council home. It costs £1,000 a week to keep someone in an acute hospital ward. It is estimated that carers, as well as improving the quality of life ofthe people for whom they care, save the economy£57 billion a year. That is the entire cost of the NHS and £10,000 per carer.
	In return, we not only give them very little, but subject them to massive bureaucracy when they want to work. Maggie Hughes is another carer whom I met that day. She told me that if carers are close to the£84 earnings limit, they are kept on a non-established list. That means that they have to keep producing wage slips and letters from their employer and filling in forms. That is very time consuming. She also found that going back and forth to the Benefits Agency used up a lot of time and energy that, together with work and caring, she simply did not have. We can do better than that for people who are making such an effort to help themselves.
	We have to do better, not only for the carers, but for ourselves. Our working population is declining, relative to the rest of the population. The Government rightly want to encourage work for those who can, for their own benefit and that of the economy. But our social care system relies on an army of unpaid carers. The Pensions Commission tells us that whatever choice we make on pensions we will all have to work longer, but it is estimated that by 2037 we will need an extra3.4 million carers just to cope with the rising number of elderly and frail people. We are living longer and as a result we spend more years in ill health. Even over the next 20 years our economy will need an extra 2 million workers. Only a quarter of those will come from school leavers.
	As the Education and Skills Committee, of which I am a member, points out, that means that adult skills will be vital in the future. We cannot afford to lose the skills and experience of people who have caring responsibilities. We have to find a way of squaring the circle, because that is vital to our future economic prospects. It has other benefits. Keeping carers in work allows them to keep their skills up to date, so that when they are ready to go back to work full time, they are more able to do so. It helps to tackle the feelings of isolation from which many carers suffer and it has health benefits. Most importantly, it helps to keep people out of poverty, both when they are caring and later as they get older.
	Yet we make it more difficult for people not only to stay in work, but to get back to work. There is no mechanism for allowing carers to try out a job and perhaps go back on benefits if it does not work out without going through the huge bureaucratic process all over again. When people want to try to study to improve their qualifications, they encounter the same problem with carer's allowance: if they study more than 21 hours a week, they lose all their carer's allowance. Yet many vocational qualifications require more than 21 hours a week of study. What sort of message does that give people who are doing their best to improve their situation? It is more worrying when we realise that the peak age for caring is between 45 and 64—exactly the age when people have acquired skills and experience and progressed in their jobs so that we can least afford to lose them.
	If we examined what we would save in carer's ill health, the contributions that people in work would make—it is estimated that one in three carers who are currently not in paid employment would like to be, if they had the opportunity—and what we would save in future in pensions and benefits, we might realise that it would pay us to ensure that more carers could stay in work.
	Although I am making the economic case, it is fundamentally a matter of justice. Sometimes we simply have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. It is intolerable that people who carry such a heavy burden and save the economy so much money are forced into poverty as a result. That often happens. A survey by Carers UK showed that one in five carers have had to cut back on food; one in three find difficulty paying utility bills and, astonishingly, four out of 10 find that trying to pay for the support and services that they need causes them financial hardship.
	Let me quote Maggie Hughes again—I hope that she will not mind. She also works in retail and cares for her disabled son. She said:
	"When my other children could not look after Stephen on Saturdays, I had to pay someone to look after him. This didn't work out as it was costing me more money to pay someone to look after Stephen than I was earning."
	That is the Catch-22 into which we put many people. They cannot earn too much because they lose carer's allowance and that means that they cannot afford the services that they may need.
	More than that, we ensure that carers live in poverty in future. One in three have no savings. There is nothing to pay for the breakdown of something in the house and no resources for their old age. Although the state second pension will help many carers, it is not a substitute for being able to work and build up a better pension in one's own right. Yet because of the "gainfully employed" rule, those who work find that they are excluded from many other benefits such as statutory sick pay, statutory maternity and adoption pay and pension contributions. We are storing up a problem for the future. We must tackle it.
	It will not be easy to rebalance the system—everyone accepts that. All the carers to whom I have spoken accept that there must be safeguards against fraud. However, difficulty is not an excuse for not starting on something. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) has a good track record and is concerned about the issue. We need to ensure that carers get the support and equipment that they need quickly to help them to work, not only because it is their right but because it is that of the people for whom they care. We should examine the way in which carer's allowance works, with a view to ensuring that, in future, it is an allowance with a taper, which rewards work rather than acting as a massive disincentive to work.
	We should also look at making an exemption in respect of the number of hours of study undertaken by people pursuing a recognised vocational qualification. In addition, we should consider establishing a scheme, similar to the one that operates for disabled people, that would allow carers to try going back to work but then to return to claiming benefit if that does not work out.
	At the Labour party conference, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he wanted the honours system to reward people such as carers and home helps. I agree 100 per cent., but he would agree with me than an MBE is not much use to people who cannot pay their bills or who face poverty in old age. It is time for us to look at the problem very seriously and to give carers the recognition that they deserve. That is in their interests, but it is in our interests too.
	I shall end my speech there, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) wants to make a short contribution.

Russell Brown: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing this debate, and I shall merely supplement some of the points that she made.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the admirable organisation Apex Scotland, which does tremendous work with offenders. Its real aim is to prevent reoffending by people who, all too often, have other problems related to alcohol or drugs. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to meet a group of Apex Scotland's employees and volunteers, as well as some of its clients. Later that afternoon, ironically enough, a constituent visiting my surgery told me that he had an excellent rapport with Apex Scotland and with the Department for Work and Pensions, and that he had been able to help a young man to take advantage of the new deal and perform 16 hours of work a week.
	The arrangement worked tremendously well for the young man in question. It had really built up his self-esteem, to the point where he was able to leave my constituent's employment and move on to work elsewhere. However, that success created a problem, and my constituent went back to Apex Scotland to look for someone else to whom he could offer the same chance. The work he had to offer was only farm labouring, and the young man recommended to him was surviving on income support. He was also caring for his father, who was terminally ill with cancer, which meant that his income, including carer's allowance of £46.95, amounted to £83.80.
	The 16 hours of new deal work that this young man would do for my constituent would have brought him an income of £86 a week, at the new minimum wage, but it would also cause him to lose his carer's allowance. The House must bear it in mind that the16 hours a week was about as much as the young man could cope with. He was trying to get back into a work environment, but he was not sure that he could afford the penalty that losing the safety net of the carer's allowance would amount to.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North said earlier, something needs to be done about people who find themselves in that situation. Perhaps we could introduce a sliding scale for the carer's allowance, but I merely want to supplement the arguments that my hon. Friend made earlier. I hope that our good friend the Minister will look favourably at the matter. She has been receptive to similar proposals that have come her way in the past, and I look forward to her response this evening.

Anne McGuire: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate and on raising some important and sensitive issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) also raised issues by illustrating a situation that he had come across recently.
	The issues are difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North highlighted in her contribution; none of them is straightforward—for example, trying to rebalance carer's allowance and other allowances—but I hope that over the next 10 minutes I shall be able to give my hon. Friends some comfort and to set out some of the ways in which we are trying to do things better.
	As most people in the House understand, caring is not something that other people do; it is often something that we shall do at some point in our life, which gives us empathy with some of the issues that have been raised tonight. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is an ageing population and an increased demand for care at home. People do not necessarily want to move away from home so the role of informal carers is set to become even more significant in the future.
	We all recognise that for some carers—perhaps those with a disabled daughter or son—caring can be a lifelong commitment; it is not something that they can opt out of when it suits them. My hon. Friend said that the caring peaks are for people between the ages of 45 and 64, when their parents are growing older, and that is certainly reflected in the number of people receiving carer's allowance.
	I realise that my hon. Friend wants to focus on issues that mainly affect carers of working age. However, she will recognise that many carers over pension age are still very much engaged in caring responsibilities. That is why provision for carers has developed over a broad front and not in the focused area that the debate has highlighted. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise in particular that the Government's removal of the age limit for claiming carer's allowance has given an additional 188,000 pensioner carers access to an additional amount through pension credit, which means that they are up to £26.35 a week better off than other pension credit recipients.
	Carer's allowance is a non-contributory and non-income-related benefit for those providing informal care. It helps carers who are not entitled to other help from social security or who do not have significant part-time earnings, or no earnings. It is in fact an income replacement benefit. The earnings limit is one of the benefit's essential features. From 2001, we raised the limit from £50 to £72 a week—an increase of more than 40 per cent. We also aligned the amount withthe lower earnings level of national insurance contributions so that it increases every year, which was not the case before 2001.
	The limit is currently £84 a week, as my hon. Friend indicated. However, people can receive carer's allowance with earnings well in excess of that amount. In line with the general rules in social security, when someone claims the allowance their gross earnings are converted to a net earnings figure by deducting income tax, national insurance contributions and half of any payments to a personal or occupational pension scheme. There are also allowances for the business expenses of self-employed people.
	Perhaps I can illustrate the process by quickly describing a couple of real case studies, as the impression has been created that £84 is the limit that a person can earn. A woman who looks after her partner is receiving carer's allowance. She decides to work part-time and her weekly earnings, net of income tax and national insurance contributions are £150. She has to pay a carer to look after her husband, Peter, while she is at work, which costs £85 a week. Half her net earnings, or £75 a week, can be allowed towards that expense, reducing her net earnings figure for carer's allowance purposes to £75 a week.
	I appreciate that such calculations may seem difficult during a short Adjournment debate at the end of an evening. However, we make allowances for certain expenses, and they allow individuals to earn significantly more than £84 a week, as my case study has indicated. I recognise that we need to get that message across far more clearly to people who are either thinking of finding employment or who are currently in employment. I could give the House a similar example of someone who is self-employed if I had the time.
	I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North thinks that we should not just introduce a taper but perhaps remove the earnings limit altogether. I understand that the ambition to do more for carers is something that echoes around many parts of the House, and we are always considering what more we might do to help them. The problem is that, if we lift the earnings limit, we would remove the rationale for carer's allowance itself, which is to provide a measure of help for carers who are disadvantaged by limited employment opportunities. Those who provide 35 hours of care a week will tend not to have high personal earnings. It is the minority who are in a relatively more favourable position with regard to earnings who would gain if the earnings limit were removed.
	My hon. Friend also suggested—this links with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown)—the introduction of a tapered earnings limit for carer's allowance. Of course, with a taper, carers who earned more than the carer's allowance earning limit would find that their carer's allowance was reduced by a percentage of their earnings, not by the total.
	I must be quite frank that the problem with tapers is that they can often add additional complexity to the system and incur quite significant additional administrative costs. However, I hear what my hon. Friend has said about one of her constituents who had to go to Benefits Agency almost every other week or month, or whatever, to get some sort of qualification for her carer's allowance. In fact, her constituent should have to undertake that sort of additional exercise only when her income regularly fluctuates.